Solar plant proposed for farmland site

LANCASTER [California] - A 230-megawatt solar power facility has been proposed on 2,100 acres of fallow farmland 1½ miles north of the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve.

Environmental studies overseen by Los Angeles County planning officials have started on the project, which is proposed at 170th Street West and Avenue D by San Francisco-based NextLight Renewable Power and which is planned to tie into Southern California Edison power lines that cross the Antelope Valley.

A meeting to describe the proposal and to solicit suggestions from the public and local organizations on what environmental issues should be examined is scheduled for 7 p.m. Thursday at Westside Community Church, 47707 90th St. West, in Antelope Acres.

Named AV Solar Ranch One, the project is proposed in answer to a state law ordering power companies like Edison to get 20% of their electricity from so-called "renewable" sources such as wind and solar energy by next year. New power lines are already being built across the western Antelope Valley, through Leona Valley and across the San Gabriel Mountains to serve new wind-turbine farms northwest of Mojave.

AV Solar Ranch One is proposed to consist of thousands of photovoltaic panels - which convert sunlight into electricity - mounted on motorized tracking units that point them at the sun as it moves across the sky. NextLight bought the former farm land last August, director of development Jack Pigott said. The firm picked the spot after looking for a large parcel of land that was flat, near power lines and in an area with plentiful sunshine, he said. The firm also wanted land that was previously disturbed, rather than virgin desert, so there would be no endangered plants or animals living on it.

From Climate Science:

1. huge cost of storing energy, required due to intermittent supply

2: huge cost of backup energy if storage impractical

3. huge cost of building new long distance transmission facilities

4. huge and unknown environmental effects (ie: bird kill, noise pollution, visual pollution, water to clean solar panels, energy to defrost windmill blades, snow cover on solar panels - etc etc etc ad- infinitum......)

5. cost of demolition of existing coal facilities and related transmission lines - many of which still have debt service against them

6. cost if borrowing funds for new systems (as a nation - we have no savings)

7. solar panels and windmills will be built in low labor cost countries unless trade barriers are used (the coal plants were built with US labor and industry)

8. carbon energy (footprint) required to mine minerals, smelt metals and fabricate a whole new energy infrastructure - and ship to, install in, and maintain in - remote locations

9. destruction, partial or complete, of the value of the real property involved (ie: often not highest and best use)

10. long term durability of windmills and solar is likely far less than that of thermal plants (40 years) - due to direct exposure to the elements and forces of nature - frequent maintenance and replacement of windmills, deterioration of solar panels due to UV radiation

Also see Why cap and trade carbon taxes will savage living standards by Gerard Jackson:

The same goes for solar panels. There is a fundamental physical law at work here. It states that the maximum amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun under optimum conditions is just under 1 kWh per square metre (11 square feet). So even if these panels were 100 per cent technically efficient they would still be grossly inefficient economically. (One should take note that greenies and their mouthpieces are always careful about never mentioning economic efficiency).

Optimum conditions mean that the sky must be clear and the sun must be perpendicular to the collecting area. These conditions are the exception and not the rule. A child with a hand calculator can easily work out from the above facts that the diluteness of solar energy means huge collecting areas. This natural limit is why even desert regions have failed to provide the necessary conditions to make solar operations profitable.

It's not as if there are no examples of this lunacy on which to draw. Back in 1991, LUZ, a solar-electricity generating company, went into bankruptcy. Green fanatics and the media enablers — the same ones who drool over Obama — preached that the company's technology had made solar power an economic alternative to nuclear energy. Even Fortune magazine fell for this garbage. LUZ had built its plant in the New Mexico desert to take advantage of the highly favourable conditions. And what is the brilliant Obama's solution? Massive subsidies.

First of all, I'm not saying that solar is the best solution for each and every energy need. The best solution is always what the market deems best. However, some of these claims are just plain wrong or do not take into account the whole picture.

huge cost of storing energy, required due to intermittent supply

Solar thermal is continuous (using e.g. molten salt heat storage). Compared to coal it isn't exactly cheap, however. Wind and PV is intermittent, storage would add a quarter to a third to the price (e.g. wind / adiabatic CAES).

huge and unknown environmental effects (ie: bird kill, noise pollution,...

Which is basically hogwash. The wind turbine bird killer myth has long been debunked, noise pollution is only an issue at very close proximity to wind turbines (yes, it sucks for those few who fall into the category, but so does strip mining, it's not a factor at all when it comes to solar) and there's hardly any unknown factor left at all.

... water to clean solar panels

How does the author think nuclear power plants are cooled? Practically all energy production requires at least a bit of water and solar needs relatively little.

cost of demolition of existing coal facilities and related transmission lines - many of which still have debt service against them

There are many that need replacing anyway, there are dozens of coal fired power plants under contruction right now in the US.

cost if borrowing funds for new systems (as a nation - we have no savings)

These costs are a fact. However, the additional costs over the next decade(s) until electricity is produced at market rates are in the same league as a banking sector bailout or the 2009 military budget. It's not a question if it can be done (a nation that can afford bombers at a billion a pop of course can do almost anything it sets its mind to), but of economic priorities.

7. solar panels and windmills will be built in low labor cost countries unless trade barriers are used (the coal plants were built with US labor and industry)

This is just plain wrong. E.g. solar panels manufacturing is capital-, not labor-intensive. Germany's Schott solar just opened another plant in the US, because they go where the market is. Is that strawman argument meant as a cry for protectionism or to pander to the left?

8. carbon energy (footprint) required to mine minerals, smelt metals and fabricate a whole new energy infrastructure - and ship to, install in, and maintain in - remote locations

Which is obviously true, but solar panels and windmills produce several times the energy needed for their fabrication (plus that of energy storage facilities).

9. destruction, partial or complete, of the value of the real property involved (ie: often not highest and best use)

PV on rooftops has no negative impact, neither has solar thermal in the desert. As to windmills: The effect of windmills on e.g. farmland is negligable. As for residential property, it's indeed an issue that needs to be considered (which goes for coal plants and strip mining, too, btw.)

10. long term durability of windmills and solar is likely far less than that of thermal plants (40 years) - due to direct exposure to the elements and forces of nature - frequent maintenance and replacement of windmills, deterioration of solar panels due to UV radiation

A solar cell deteriorates considerably less from UV radiation than a large steam turbine (e.g. in a coal or nuclear plant) from several hundred degrees and extreme pressure. It's still economic to use and maintain the turbine (-> economies of scale), but it's not like thermal plants magically repair themselves.

A child with a hand calculator can easily work out from the above facts that the diluteness of solar energy means huge collecting areas. This natural limit is why even desert regions have failed to provide the necessary conditions to make solar operations profitable.

Wrong. The high cost of high-grade silicon and the resulting lack of solar cell mass production were the reason. The US has twice the area that would be necessary to switch the whole system to solar (~30,000 sqare miles) paved for road or parking lot use (~60,000 square miles). Yes, it's a HUUUUUUUGE collecting area, but it's not a scale that hasn't been done before with other things.

The same goes for solar panels. There is a fundamental physical law at work here. It states that the maximum amount of energy that the earth receives from the sun under optimum conditions is just under 1 kWh per square metre (11 square feet). So even if these panels were 100 per cent technically efficient they would still be grossly inefficient economically. (One should take note that greenies and their mouthpieces are always careful about never mentioning economic efficiency).

First of all, that's scientifically incorrect. It's 1 kW (i.e. 1,000 joules per second, kW being a unit of power), not 1 kWh (which is a unit of energy). Secondly, that's quite a lot. An electric oven equals 2.5 square meters of insolation, a car travelling at 65 mph equals roughly 15 sq m of insolation (at 100% efficiency). An average roof however, has more than 100 sq meters.

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.