First Hyrbid Solar Thermal Power Plant In Florida!!

[Silhouette]

Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.

How much did the mirrors cost? How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?

Let's turn that around a bit. Since common sense dictates that something that is free for most of the year [solar energy that boils the water ultimately], is less expensive than paying for fuel, the onus is open you to show the numbers that this obvious savings isn't somehow viable.

I'll await your numbers with anticipation showing your projections how burning carbon during those daylight hours would be cheaper than free energy...lol..

 

[whitehall]

Another 500 acres of environmentally sensitive sub tropical property ruined by covering it with solar panels. Before y'all lefties go congratulating yourselves about the alleged fossil fuel you "saved" you have to factor in the fossil fuel it took to build the thing. An important thing to note is that the radicals focus on how much fossil fuel the thing will allegedly "save" rather than the dismal output. Apparently the manufacture of solar panels is so hazardous that they make the junk in countries like China which have little or no haz-mat restrictions.

 

[Spiderman]

Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.

How much did the mirrors cost? How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?

Let's turn that around a bit. Since common sense dictates that something that is free for most of the year [solar energy that boils the water ultimately], is less expensive than paying for fuel, the onus is open you to show the numbers that this obvious savings isn't somehow viable.

I'll await your numbers with anticipation showing your projections how burning carbon during those daylight hours would be cheaper than free energy...lol..

It's not "free" If it was "free" there would be no need for government subsidies now would there?

The materials cost money. Construction costs money maintenance costs money.

Haven't you learned that nothing is "free" yet?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Let's scale it down so your scary lies won't stick, shall we Jar Jar? Let's help folks see the economics of the situation...

Let's say my or your home or business was run by a tiny gas powered turbine to make electricity for you. Then you bought some mirrors that boiled the water for you using the sun's rays. So now while the sun was shining, you didn't have to buy gas to run your turbine. Whew! Good thing the sun shines 300 days a year where you live. What a savings!

At night you don't use much energy either. Neither does the country as a whole. Over a year's time you have saved so much money in gas that just five years later or less, your new system has paid for itself and you now have the cheapest energy of anyone on your block using the old carbon-24-7/365 system.

I'm not going to go all manic on you and type the same word a hundred times. But you get the point.. Just shift your investments, don't go into panic mode. That's what everyone else is doing. Don't get left behind and you won't panic.

Yet again: You have not refuted ONE SINGLE WORD I have posted. The plant will LOSE $300,000,000, and no amount of shrieking horseshit to the heavens will change this simple FACT, Silly. It is a bottomless money pit, and yet you are still lying about it. Why is that, Silly?

 

[Silhouette]

There seems to be quite a bit of palpable anger about a solar thermal plant in Florida. Odd?

First of all, if you look at the picture in the OP, the solar mirrors are not taking up the entire 500 acres. The entire property of the plant that used to be just natural gas is probably a 500 acre tract. I know large tracts of land by sight and scale. Judging by the road near the plant, the facilities and the size of the array in the background, it looks like about 80-100 acres instead where the actual mirrors are set up. The rest is the natural gas plant and probably the largest share to wetland mitigation judging by the levees and water areas:

 

[skookerasbil]

An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plant’s own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facility’s estimated 30-year lifetime.

The Martin Energy Center is the world’s first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.


Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]

Whoot Whoot! There may be hope after all. The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.

It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.

Well done gentlemen...well done...

Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again. Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol.. Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."

Duh! DO THE MATH $$$$ These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.

For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius. That's way way hotter than boiling water. Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant. They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas. The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.

But this is an excellent start.





...

fAiL sweets...........






















These green fantasy bubble dwellars.........I really hate to always be the one blowing their shit up, but the way I look at it, somebody around here has to keep it real.

 

[skookerasbil]

shit......almost forgot........

 

[asterism]

Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.

How much did the mirrors cost? How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?

Let's turn that around a bit. Since common sense dictates that something that is free for most of the year [solar energy that boils the water ultimately], is less expensive than paying for fuel, the onus is open you to show the numbers that this obvious savings isn't somehow viable.

I'll await your numbers with anticipation showing your projections how burning carbon during those daylight hours would be cheaper than free energy...lol..

I'm not the one making the claim that this is a good investment, you are. However, I'll show you this:

Type in Zip Code 32258, select JEA as the utility, and put $300 as the average electric bill at this link -

Solar Power Calculator | Find Solar

It shows a total cost before government subsidies to be over $127K. With subsidies it's $89K.

Would you spend $89,0000 right now to save $300 per month? I wouldn't. It's barely break-even assuming the system doesn't require any maintenance or repair.


So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?

 

[Silhouette]

So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?

Let's look at the situation from outer space. If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it? The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up. In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants. So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas. You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do. It's called maintenance. You may have heard of the term in industry before?

 

[Spiderman]

So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?

Let's look at the situation from outer space. If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it? The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up. In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants. So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas. You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do. It's called maintenance. You may have heard of the term in industry before?

You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.

Why is that?

 

[Silhouette]

So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?

Let's look at the situation from outer space. If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it? The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up. In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants. So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas. You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do. It's called maintenance. You may have heard of the term in industry before?

You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.

Why is that?

The solar thermal addition was built onto the plant in 2013, just a few short months ago. We will use common sense to project that simple mirrors creating free energy to run the turbines at the plant during sunny days, of which there are numerous ones in Florida, will be a net savings and a boon even to that company. We will await the number in five years and I will hand you your ass. Meanwhile, common sense dictates that free energy for 300+ days a year to run those turbines is going to be an excellent bet for investors.

Shall we discuss nuclear subsidies and how that industry makes no profit at all? OK, since you insist. Our next tutorial will be the hidden costs of fracking and coal mining:

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up

U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives...

...Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities

...The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk

With this track record, it’s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-costs/

Now, let's see.... which company would I want to invest in? A nuclear plant that costs BILLIONS to startup, that never sees a net profit, and if anything goes wrong can destroy my entire country and its natural resources forever or....a solar thermal plant that costs just millions instead, sees profit in a very short time, and that does nothing whatsoever to the environment when something goes wrong; where everything can be mitigated and fixed easily? Hmmm...tough choice there... Government subsidies being equal of course...well...not exactly since BILLIONS is a bit different than millions...

Next: "Fracking, aquifers, fragile shale, fragile well casings and lateral shear earthquakes. Specialists on the New Madrid Fault will weigh in on its being overdue to quake and how far those kinetic waves travel through the Midwest strata as compared to California's more rocky underlayment." Or "Kiss your fresh water goodbye forever America". Or "The hidden BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS costs in the fracking industry [you know, if you add up losses in agriculture from fouled aquifers forever]"

 

[asterism]

So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?

Let's look at the situation from outer space. If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it? The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up. In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants. So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas. You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do. It's called maintenance. You may have heard of the term in industry before?

You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types. Prove that because I don't believe you. I've done my part and posted actual costs. Why won't you?

 

[asterism]

Let's look at the situation from outer space. If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it? The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up. In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants. So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas. You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do. It's called maintenance. You may have heard of the term in industry before?

You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.

Why is that?

The solar thermal addition was built onto the plant in 2013, just a few short months ago. We will use common sense to project that simple mirrors creating free energy to run the turbines at the plant during sunny days, of which there are numerous ones in Florida, will be a net savings and a boon even to that company. We will await the number in five years and I will hand you your ass. Meanwhile, common sense dictates that free energy for 300+ days a year to run those turbines is going to be an excellent bet for investors.

Shall we discuss nuclear subsidies and how that industry makes no profit at all? OK, since you insist. Our next tutorial will be the hidden costs of fracking and coal mining:

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up

U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives...

...Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities

...The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk

With this track record, it’s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-costs/

Now, let's see.... which company would I want to invest in? A nuclear plant that costs BILLIONS to startup, that never sees a net profit, and if anything goes wrong can destroy my entire country and its natural resources forever or....a solar thermal plant that costs just millions instead, sees profit in a very short time, and that does nothing whatsoever to the environment when something goes wrong; where everything can be mitigated and fixed easily? Hmmm...tough choice there... Government subsidies being equal of course...well...not exactly since BILLIONS is a bit different than millions...

Next: "Fracking, aquifers, fragile shale, fragile well casings and lateral shear earthquakes. Specialists on the New Madrid Fault will weigh in on its being overdue to quake and how far those kinetic waves travel through the Midwest strata as compared to California's more rocky underlayment." Or "Kiss your fresh water goodbye forever America". Or "The hidden BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS costs in the fracking industry [you know, if you add up losses in agriculture from fouled aquifers forever]"

It really looks like you're having a problem with finance here. That's odd for someone advocating that investments get made. When have you ever invested in something without having cost data for review?

 

[Spiderman]

Let's look at the situation from outer space. If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it? The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up. In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants. So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas. You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do. It's called maintenance. You may have heard of the term in industry before?

You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.

Why is that?

The solar thermal addition was built onto the plant in 2013, just a few short months ago. We will use common sense to project that simple mirrors creating free energy to run the turbines at the plant during sunny days, of which there are numerous ones in Florida, will be a net savings and a boon even to that company. We will await the number in five years and I will hand you your ass. Meanwhile, common sense dictates that free energy for 300+ days a year to run those turbines is going to be an excellent bet for investors.

Shall we discuss nuclear subsidies and how that industry makes no profit at all? OK, since you insist. Our next tutorial will be the hidden costs of fracking and coal mining:

The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up

U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives...

...Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities

...The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.”

The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk

With this track record, it’s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing—so the industry has looked to government for subsidies, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate. The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up | Union of Concerned Scientists

Now, let's see.... which company would I want to invest in? A nuclear plant that costs BILLIONS to startup, that never sees a net profit, and if anything goes wrong can destroy my entire country and its natural resources forever or....a solar thermal plant that costs just millions instead, sees profit in a very short time, and that does nothing whatsoever to the environment when something goes wrong; where everything can be mitigated and fixed easily? Hmmm...tough choice there... Government subsidies being equal of course...well...not exactly since BILLIONS is a bit different than millions...

Next: "Fracking, aquifers, fragile shale, fragile well casings and lateral shear earthquakes. Specialists on the New Madrid Fault will weigh in on its being overdue to quake and how far those kinetic waves travel through the Midwest strata as compared to California's more rocky underlayment." Or "Kiss your fresh water goodbye forever America". Or "The hidden BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS costs in the fracking industry [you know, if you add up losses in agriculture from fouled aquifers forever]"

I'm not talking about fracking am I?

Besides even the EPA can't find any real evidence of harm from fracking.

EPA Study: Marcellus Fracking Does NOT Impact Drinking Water | Marcellus Drilling News

NUCLEAR is the energy of the future.

We should be shooting for 80% of our power to be generated from emission free nuclear power produced by burning all of the nuclear waste we currently have in storage.

Wind and solar should be relegated to their proper role as small source supplemental power.

And BTW you still haven't provided any real numbers.

 

[Silhouette]

You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types. Prove that because I don't believe you. I've done my part and posted actual costs. Why won't you?

Because of the dangerous nature of burning coal, natural gas or uranium, the permitting process of these plants takes up to 10 years, is unbelievably expensive and the compenents of safety checks and backup systems, waste disposal and environmental mitigation just runs costs off the charts.

Sunshine reflected on a pipe filled with fluid take much less worry and disaster out of the equation so the permitting process is much much cheaper and quicker.

For the modular and quick nature of solar thermal installation, view this youtube:

[ame=http://youtu.be/7Gvwy8yDMzw]Areva's Kimberlina Solar Thermal Power Plant_ Thermal Power Station Videos.engineerbaber.pak - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asterism]

You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types. Prove that because I don't believe you. I've done my part and posted actual costs. Why won't you?

Because of the dangerous nature of burning coal, natural gas or uranium, the permitting process of these plants takes up to 10 years, is unbelievably expensive and the compenents of safety checks and backup systems, waste disposal and environmental mitigation just runs costs off the charts.

Sunshine reflected on a pipe filled with fluid take much less worry and disaster out of the equation so the permitting process is much much cheaper and quicker.

For the modular and quick nature of solar thermal installation, view this youtube:

[ame=http://youtu.be/7Gvwy8yDMzw]Areva's Kimberlina Solar Thermal Power Plant_ Thermal Power Station Videos.engineerbaber.pak - YouTube[/ame]

I don't understand why you won't just post the financial data to prove you are correct. Why is that?

 

[Silhouette]

I don't understand why you won't just post the financial data to prove you are correct. Why is that?

Yes, you do understand because it was explained to you. It is the FIRST HYBRID PLANT IN THE WORLD according to the article title and was only installed a year ago So, the numbers will take time to come in.

Suffice to say it's an excellent roll of the dice that if it's easier and vastly cheaper to install and permit and mitigate environmentally, with free energy once its installed, the numbers are going to be much sweeter than pure coal or natural gas plants or the complete net loss that nuclear is.

I tell you, there isn't even a number high enough to calculate what between Chernobyl & Fukushima, what the total cost to the world environmental systems, fisheries and oceans will be.

 

[HenryBHough]

Cute things. I mean hybrid power plants. The best of them have a little gasoline engine to run when the load is a little too heavy but the neat part is you can plug them into the grid to feed off themselves overnight when demand is low.

I want one for a pet!

Provided the do-gooders don't make me have it neutered.

 

[Silhouette]

Cute things. I mean hybrid power plants. The best of them have a little gasoline engine to run when the load is a little too heavy but the neat part is you can plug them into the grid to feed off themselves overnight when demand is low.

I want one for a pet!

Provided the do-gooders don't make me have it neutered.

Are you belittling burning less fuel each year to produce the same output Martin natural gas, now Martin solar thermal hybrid always did? The company is reducing its overhead. Not sure how that is a bad thing.

 

[Spiderman]

Cute things. I mean hybrid power plants. The best of them have a little gasoline engine to run when the load is a little too heavy but the neat part is you can plug them into the grid to feed off themselves overnight when demand is low.

I want one for a pet!

Provided the do-gooders don't make me have it neutered.

Are you belittling burning less fuel each year to produce the same output Martin natural gas, now Martin solar thermal hybrid always did? The company is reducing its overhead. Not sure how that is a bad thing.

Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.