Posted on 08/15/2008 4:58:41 PM PDT by Iron Munro
Companies will build two solar power plants in California that together will put out more than 12 times as much electricity as the largest such plant today, the latest indication that solar energy is starting to achieve significant scale.
The plants will cover 12.5 square miles of central California with solar panels, and in the middle of a sunny day will generate about 800 megawatts of power, roughly equal to the size of a large coal-burning power plant or a small nuclear plant. A megawatt is enough power to run a large Wal-Mart store.
Though the California installations will generate 800 megawatts at times when the sun is shining brightly, they will operate for fewer hours of the year than a coal or nuclear plant would and so will produce a third or less as much total electricity.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Installations like this are not economically competitive with other technology and require subsidies, tax breaks and government mandates to use alternative power.
And what (if any) impact will we see from intercepting so much solar energy before it striked the ground?
Not to worry. Does anyone think the leftist environuts won’t stall this 12 sq mile array with environmental impact studies of its effect on some presently undiscovered spider or frog.
Then will come the lawsuits.
If we’re lucky, It may get off the ground in the year that the mythical Capt. Kirk got his starship launched into space.
“The shining city” NOT on a hill.
also....notice how the actual cost is not even known yet. The economies of scale will probably mean huge cost over runs and higher electric rates. Just like wind, these plants are great at producing power for PART of the day, but unless you build batteries the size of Mount Everest, you will still need good old nukes, coal, or nat gas plants to produce when the sun ain’t shining, or the wind ain’t blowin. No amount of gov’t subsidies of enviro wacko lunacy can change that fact.
That's a pretty big footprint.
Not to mention the amount of actual land it takes to build one. 12.5 square miles, did I read that right? To build a truly large installation that would generate what we actually need in this country would require huge amounts of land that should be used in growing crops and trees for timber. What a waste. Even the dessert would be a waste because if we build nuke desalinization plants we could irrigate most of the dessert and grow crops there. Drill, drill here, drill now and build nukes. F*** the left wing idiots who want to ruin our country and turn us into slaves.
Thanks. I was hoping for further confirmation on that point. Even to me, the 9 square miles thing sounded exagerated. Now I see it wasn’t exagerated a bit.
You might want to check your math on that one:
1 sq. mile = 640 acres.
12.5 sq. miles = 8,000 acres
ANWR = 8,000,000 acres = 12,500 sq miles.
Is this NYT's way of dumbing it down for the hay seed hicks?
What is the output on a cloudy day.......I love it. CA without power....bring on the clowns....clouds.
Nevada Solar One lies some 20 miles south of Las Vegas and is one of two prototype plants to utilise the technology that recently opened in the US. Another 10 such plants are in advanced stages of planning in California, Arizona and Nevada.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/07/eanevada107.xml
If the feds have any part in it the cost will double halfway through the project and then triple by the end.
Correction to my post above. The 8,000,00 acres is just the designated “wilderness section” section of ANWR. The entire ANWR reserve is actually much larger, more then double that size.
12.5 square miles, about twice the footprint of ANWR drilling. Are the Greenies in an uproar?
That's the total area of ANWR. I think he was thinking of the footprint for oil and gas drilling and production, or about 2,000 acres in ANWR. The difference (12.5 sq. miles vs. 2,000 acres) for fossil energy extraction is stunning! And, yes that surface area is disturbed, but you don't put the solar panels over the entire surface.
Hey, don't rain on the solar parade!
Though the California installations will generate 800 megawatts at times when the sun is shining brightly, they will operate for fewer hours of the year than a coal or nuclear plant would and so will produce a third or less as much total electricity.
Also, since this is Central Cali, don’t forget about all those Tule fogs.
I for some reason was thinking anwr (our drilling foorprint) was 19 square miles
Good deal, build more.
As technology advances, as it has, it will get less and less expensive to produce energy from the sun.
Bookmark this one to show to those who think we can easily replace fossil fuel and nuclear powered plants with solar.
The article, never claimed that solar would replace fossil fuel or nuclear.
If we can harness power from the sun, which we are starting to do, we need to pursue solar technology and other technologies and go forward.
In addition, almost all the technologies and advances in solar are being created right here in California.
Again, no one in the article is suggesting this will replace other energy sources...But I'll predict, one day, within this century, this planet will probably receive 70 percent of it's electrical energy from the sun. I am confident with advances in producing solar power energy, it's coming.
Solar plants are great if you don't need electricity for lights when it is dark outside.
I think you are right. I took him literally when he said ANWR, but your comment makes sense and drilling in ANWR also makes cents, many many cents. ;)
Simple, nuclear, wind, hydro, etc etc.
More folly from the left.
“We want it, and you’ll pay for it.”
We should attach some of these to the trees in Berkeley and let the treesitters do something useful.
A solar plant in Death Valley might not be a bad idea..
The article may not claim that solar can replace fossil fuel or nuclear but the solar boosters make the claim. Solar and wind power plants require large subsidies and mandates in most places. Renewable power generation is not economically viable in most applications. The subsidies and mandates will guarantee that renewable never becomes economically viable. Why should the technology become economically viable when mandates and subsidies ensure its usage. Large increases in energy costs and energy shortages are coming because of the subsidies and mandates for non economically viable energy sources.
I read about this in another thread and there was a little caveat about taxpayer subsidies in order to make this project even doable. So there is taxpayer money involved.
No it didn't.
but the solar boosters make the claim.
I never heard anyone ever claim that solar energy would replace all other sources.
Renewable power generation is not economically viable in most applications
lol...And when they first designed and built contraptions that actually flew through the air, they were extremely dangerous, and very unreliable. Many short sighted people at the time, thought their uses were best suited for carnivals.
The place referred to in the article, doesn't produce a whole lot of "crops", nor is there forest, or many trees at all, except for those planted by the few who have settled there. Here's a picture
Granted, the panels are slated to be installed some miles north of this photo's location. But if anything, it's a bit flatter there, with even less trees! So forget about the "timber" part which you mention. As for crops, many years ago, (to the North, where the solar panels are to go, and some miles further) there was dry farm barley, which produced quite a bit, in the 30's, 40's, 50's. Those days are long gone.
I guess you didn't read the last part of my post in which I said that the solar panels will even screw up desserts because if we build nuke desalinization plants and turn ocean water into pure, sweet water we can grow crops, and trees, on dessert land. Oil is here and now, solar is iffy and expensive and really not the way to go now. We have more oil in the ground than the Saudis have, we need to drill, drill now and drill here. That is the short term solution.
Private enterprise needs to research and develop alternatives, if they are viable and profit making. Without profits alternative energy is a loser.
Build nukes, both for energy and for desalinization, drill for oil it is what works now, search for viable alternatives, but use oil now.
You are missing my point. I support private development of any energy technology. I do not support mandates and operating subsidies for any energy technology. At the current time, solar and wind are recepients of substantial mandates and operating subsidies. Without these subsidies and mandates, wind and solar will find proper usage. If their efficiency increases enough, they may find wind usage. The subsidies and mandates ensure that most wind and solar plants will not be economically viable. I would argue the same point for any technology. If it needs long-term mandates and subsidies, it will never be economically viable.
12.5 square miles of dessert? Wow! Ice cream, pecan pie, or what? *\;-)
To their defense it would reduce the load on other (fuel-u$ing) generating plants during the day --ON AVERAGE-- when the electric load tends to be at peak. Not entirely a bad thing, and if it can prevail over the enviros' objections there might be more hope for a Wahhabi-free energy supply.
And you are welcome to do just that. And I agree with you. Don't lose confidence, as there is an inordinate amount of private, solar energy R&D happening as we speak among other endeavors.
I believe the sun likely is the Holy Grail to much of our energy needs. I don't know if it will come in the form of advanced solar panel discoveries and new technologies, or entirely something else that will harness the immense stellar energy. I honestly believe this.
Well, I will tell you, 12.5 square miles isn’t much, but it tells a lot about how much is needed to actually replace oil with solar. Some day we will need the dessert lands we can reclaim now with desalinization plants. Drill now, drill here, oil is now, alternatives are for the future.
No argument here, but there will be “disputes” with libs over this..
Surely that has to be worth something!
Running for cover!
And people wonder why their bills keep going up.
Two plants at 12.5 sq miles each? 25 square miles of real estate (which will be “sterilized” of all life under the solar panels) to be sacrificed for two small power plants that can run (at best!) 1/3 of the time. In sunny weather (not actually a bad prediction for southern CA = “most” of the time across the summer it is actually sunny. Minus the few fires and clouds.
In winter? Less than 1/2 the days are free of clouds! -> even MORE waste.
But the enviro’s are happy!
—
(By the way - I can build two gas-powered power plants, each 400 megawatts, in the parking lot of a typical grocery store.)
Now, for each plant, multiply that photo by 24 times.
All covered by expensive, hard-to-repair shiny flat glass reflective panels linked by hundreds of miles of roads and access space and electric cables.
For NOTHING. The AGW they fear is NOT a problem, now nor in the future.
And the power these solar plants "might" produce is going to be available 1/3 of the time (actually, that too is a bit of an exaggeration - 1/4 of the time (6 hours of the 24 hour day) is the BEST they hope for) and that optimistic assumption is based on hoped for clear skies.
This, (below) is desert; (a portion of the Mojave)
Bet you won't be making that mistake again. Someone else here attempted to point that small error out to you previously. Their joke about it, went right past you.
This cycling is VERY VERY expensive and creates cracks and very severe thermal cycling damage in the conventional gas turbines. Since I need to open, inspect and often replace the (very expensive) gas turbine burners and blades and exhaust parts with new ones after a couple of hundred (approximately) thermal cycles, the solar plants are FORCING very expensive ADDITIONAL repairs on their gas turbine competitors. And those significant extra repair and replacement and shutdown costs are NOT included in the solar power “costs” by any eviro extremists.
A steam plant cycling is even worse - steam plant operators and heatup rate limits on turbines and piping simply can't safely take the hundreds of extra startup and shutdowns required by solar.
But - if you use a nuke for base load, and solar for peak load in the southwest, doesn’t that work?
Otherwise, the location of the plant, would make it a dandy place to have a "peaking" supply input, at those times that Central Valley power users (just over the Temblors) typically max out, due to electrically powered air conditioning.
A little bit of power here, a little there, and pretty soon we are talking real numbers.
As far as drilling for more natural gas, and oil, we should do that also. As fast as we can, as far as my opinion is concerned.
The common anti-oil, nonsensical saying currently in circulation is "we can't drill our way out of our energy problems". Ok, fine. BUT, we CAN drill our way out of our "problem" not being even bigger (can you say "huge"? I knew you could) in the future.
Those (like Lois Capps) in opposition to drilling (particularly offshore) also are saying that if we were to do so, it would take ten years for the oil to begin to be utilized, and it would then reduce the price of gasoline at the pump "by only 2 cents". I'll take paying 2 cents LESS, in ten years, over paying a few dollars MORE, that's for sure.
Is wind power as bad as solar power with the cycles? It seems that wind power would be as bad. I also think that the control systems with wind and solar must be especially complex and not very reliable. Although wind and solar may be reasonably predicted in the aggregate, they may not be predictable in the micro level. I am not sure if you have expertise at the control level. I think that the proponets of renewable energy are hiding some ugly truths.
Some wind collection areas (particularly using offshore winds in particular locations (the North Sea, off the Dutch coast, north German coasts, parts of the CA coast) can be predicted to have moderate winds most of the time.
Too high a wind = no power, you have to “furl” (unload) the wind turbines or they destroy themselves.
Too low, as in almost all of the east coast, southeast (from LA, ark., Missip, GA, NC, SC, TN, and most of FL) are under season high pressure areas where low or irregular winds dominate. No power is available almost all the time. The northeast? Too unpredictable. Too little moderate winds, and almost no massive areas free of interferences hills and valleys to get wind speeds up.
So: the midwest and flat central plains can be used. And should be. IF (big IF) they can pay for themselves.
But.... That is NOT what is happening.
Pelosi (the enviro’s) are manipulating oil, natural gas, and coal prices (by their opposition to every inexpexsive, proven energy source) so that SOME inefficient, ineffective, not-readily-available, unproven, unreliable, and too-expensive “alternate” energy sources ARE REQUIRED by the enviro legislation.
They are doing through the manipulation of global warming, and are being used by, and using, the extremist greens to foist off these expensive “choices.”
If we really had a “choice” of energy producers, NO alternative “fuel” would be considered. NONE are as good as what's being prohibited by the democrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.