$2.2 billion solar thermal plant known as Ivanpah

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

edatoakrun

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
5,222
Location
Shasta County, North California
"Big Solar" has arrived, here, in California. Check out the slide-show at the link below.

Whatever you may think about the positive and negative effects of California's efforts to increase the "renewable" proportion of it's electricity generation, it is undoubtedly a very large effort.


Out in the Mojave Desert in California, a power plant that could eventually generate enough electricity for 140,000 homes hopes to get its moment in the sun soon. When the $2.2 billion solar thermal plant known as Ivanpah is completed — sometime next year, if all goes according to plan — nearly 350,000 mirrors on 3,600 acres will reflect light onto boilers. Steam will power turbines, which will generate electricity that flows to California homes. It will be the largest such plant in the world. These “solar workhorses of the desert,” says V. John White, an analyst in Sacramento and an advocate for renewable energy, “can produce a lot of high-quality energy in the way that other renewable energies can’t do. And there are only a handful of places on the planet that have solar radiation that good.” But some opponents have criticized the Obama administration for pushing solar projects that don’t pan out. The solar-panel maker Solyndra declared bankruptcy last year despite receiving $528 million in federally guaranteed loans, while BrightSource Energy, one of Ivanpah’s developers, has benefited from a similar $1.6 billion government loan. It’s expensive harnessing the sun. And the costs go beyond construction. BrightSource says that it has spent more than $56 million relocating desert tortoises.

Julie Bosman

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/17/magazine/the-largest-solar-farm-in-the-world.html?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
how many homes in CA could be outfitted with solar panels if that money was used to subsidize a portion of the costs?

How much is CA spending on homeowner solar subsidies?
 
At about $15,000 per each of the 140,000 homes, one could
make a major step toward distributed energy generation.

However, the Power Company does not want to lose control
of its strangle-hold on power, and the big (guarenteed) profits!
 
there already are federal GRANTS in the way of a personal TAX CREDIT -- not federal loan guarantees as with this project -- for any residential project in the country. they return 30% of the cost of the solar to the homeowner.

and there are utility grants, too, for the homeowner.
LADWP paid for 48% of the cost of my PV solar.

get on board.
dont be left out.
 
That is interesting that for the same money 140,000 homes could have a $15,700 subsidy for PV arrays. If this were considered to be a 50% subsidy, the array size could be doubled to $31,400. With that amount of influx it would be conceivable that PV could be installed for $5 per watt. This would make for a 6,280 watt array. In the same area that this central project will be servicing that sized array should just about meet all the needs. This coupled with the 30% Federal Tax Credit, a homeowner would only have to spend $6,280. Our 6.8kW system generates 15 mWh per year. At an average of $0.10 per kWh it is possible that the system could pay for itself in a little over four years.

The only wrench in the works is whether the proposed generation plant has the capability to store enough energy to be able to meet the electrical demand overnight. If it does, then it may be a solution that a homeowner would not be able to provide and may be superior.
 
Yeah, the big benefit of solar thermal is that it will have some storage which will enable it to produce power later into the day.

In the summer, typical peak demand on weekdays is around 4-5pm. Weekend and winter demand peaks between 7-9pm. So not a whole lot of storage is needed - certainly don't need 24-hour storage - more like 4-5 hour storage max. Storage also smooths out generation if clouds hit the array.

Contrast that with PV - a fixed array oriented for maximum annual production peak production is around 1pm in the summer and is close to half peak output by 5pm. And of course is completely gone when the sun goes down which misses the winter peak completely. 1-axis tracking can flatten out the curve significantly, but typically increases cost enough that it's cheaper to throw more panels at it. One could also tilt the array towards the west, but that has limited effect and decreases annual production - there's not enough solar on the grid yet that it's worth the compromise.

Personally I'd rather see more distributed roof-top installs before big desert installs - that generates power closer to where it's used and also provides an insulating benefit for the building it's on - cooling the building in the summer and keeping the building warmer in the winter which further reduces HVAC loads.
 
ERG4ALL said:
That is interesting that for the same money 140,000 homes could have a $15,700 subsidy for PV arrays. If this were considered to be a 50% subsidy, the array size could be doubled to $31,400. With that amount of influx it would be conceivable that PV could be installed for $5 per watt. This would make for a 6,280 watt array. In the same area that this central project will be servicing that sized array should just about meet all the needs. This coupled with the 30% Federal Tax Credit, a homeowner would only have to spend $6,280. Our 6.8kW system generates 15 mWh per year. At an average of $0.10 per kWh it is possible that the system could pay for itself in a little over four years.

The only wrench in the works is whether the proposed generation plant has the capability to store enough energy to be able to meet the electrical demand overnight. If it does, then it may be a solution that a homeowner would not be able to provide and may be superior.

These are loan GUARANTEES, not grants. it is not fungible in the way your comment assumes.
Of course, your idea is a good one, there just isn't funding for it, and right now in CA there are even news stories -- planted by the private utilities -- that subsidies for solar from utilities hurts customers who cant afford to install PV.
 
edatoakrun said:
"Big Solar" has arrived, here, in California.

Wait? Just now? ;)

The first solar thermal plant was an 14 MW facility in Dagget, CA- SEGS I. 8 other plants were built, with the last coming online in 1990, bringing the total to 354MW. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems

According the the CA ISO (the manager of California's transmission grid), recent solar expansion has raised total output to over 800MW. Yesterday (6/14) saw 840MW peak. Although watch out, the solar power shown after ~20:00 is actually natural gas fired from SEGS. No thermal solar incorporating storage is online yet in California, as far as I know.

While I too took the nameplate MW rating and divided it by cost to get that ~$5/watt figure for this new plant, I do want you gents to realize something. Nameplates are just the maximum that the system could generate in ideal conditions. To get the most watt hours per day/month/year you want the system to have a high capacity factor, which is (actual production)/(nameplate*hours in a year). To have the highest capacity factor, your going to want to set up where you can get the most sun hours a year....

619px-Us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg


Arguably, this means you want to put them somewhere in the southwest desert. So why didn't they just put photovoltaic panels out there? Well, with power plants, planning takes years. In 2008, '09, '10, etc PV was significantly more expensive then it is today. We've seen quite a price drop over the last year. It's going to take some time before new large projects go through the planning. The thermal storage systems, which hopefully will be implemented in new and future plants, will keep solar thermal in the picture for a while.

Now, this doesn't mean that I'm not for putting solar on everyone's roof in Cali. We should. We need both. :) I'd also like to point out there are a lot of houses where there's not enough unshaded roof space for 6kW of panels, or areas (like right on the coasts) where you'd see a significantly lower output due to weather. How do you explain to Joe 6 pack that his neighbor gets more panels (and more bill reduction) because of a better facing roof, or less shading? What about upgrades to the distribution grid feeding these 140k houses? There's a lot of trade offs with 140,000 houses having solar and building a plant out in the desert, and I don't believe they are directly comparable.

To see other solar projects in the pipe, see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

Jeremy
 
JeremyW said:
How do you explain to Joe 6 pack that his neighbor gets more panels (and more bill reduction) because of a better facing roof, or less shading? What about upgrades to the distribution grid feeding these 140k houses? There's a lot of trade offs with 140,000 houses having solar and building a plant out in the desert, and I don't believe they are directly comparable.
One thing I think we need to do a better job of going forward is bring in solar planning into building (residential and commercial) design. Now that I have solar I see all the rooftops around that are either well or badly laid out for this. If folks buying new or used houses could see that house X had a bad layout and would cost XX in electricity costs per year, but house Y was good and they could add solar to bring it to YY, that might after folks. Kinda like the energy ratings on new appliances.

Aaaahhh... who am I kidding? Energy is still too cheap to drive this!
 
Electric4Me said:
JeremyW said:
How do you explain to Joe 6 pack that his neighbor gets more panels (and more bill reduction) because of a better facing roof, or less shading? What about upgrades to the distribution grid feeding these 140k houses? There's a lot of trade offs with 140,000 houses having solar and building a plant out in the desert, and I don't believe they are directly comparable.
One thing I think we need to do a better job of going forward is bring in solar planning into building (residential and commercial) design. Now that I have solar I see all the rooftops around that are either well or badly laid out for this. If folks buying new or used houses could see that house X had a bad layout and would cost XX in electricity costs per year, but house Y was good and they could add solar to bring it to YY, that might after folks. Kinda like the energy ratings on new appliances.

Aaaahhh... who am I kidding? Energy is still too cheap to drive this!
Ahem. "California poised to require 'solar ready roofs' on new homes and buildings":

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20744057/california-poised-require-solar-ready-roofs-new-homes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
GRA said:
Electric4Me said:
JeremyW said:
How do you explain to Joe 6 pack that his neighbor gets more panels (and more bill reduction) because of a better facing roof, or less shading? What about upgrades to the distribution grid feeding these 140k houses? There's a lot of trade offs with 140,000 houses having solar and building a plant out in the desert, and I don't believe they are directly comparable.
One thing I think we need to do a better job of going forward is bring in solar planning into building (residential and commercial) design. Now that I have solar I see all the rooftops around that are either well or badly laid out for this. If folks buying new or used houses could see that house X had a bad layout and would cost XX in electricity costs per year, but house Y was good and they could add solar to bring it to YY, that might after folks. Kinda like the energy ratings on new appliances.

Aaaahhh... who am I kidding? Energy is still too cheap to drive this!
Ahem. "California poised to require 'solar ready roofs' on new homes and buildings":

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20744057/california-poised-require-solar-ready-roofs-new-homes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Awesome! Sometime it's great to be proved wrong! :lol:
 
And now it's online

http://www.earthtechling.com/2014/02/ivanpah-worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-is-operational/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very cool imho
 
Back to what some were suggesting in the earlier posts on this thread:

A few months back a friend of mine got a PV system on their home. In this case, they did not pay for it, but only pay for the energy they use at a fixed rate.

If our local utilities could do this, then the amount of money spent on these very large projects could be broken down into home sizes with the utilities owning the PV system and the homeowner could get a cheap fixed price for the energy they use.
 
ksnogas2112 said:
And now it's online

http://www.earthtechling.com/2014/02/ivanpah-worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-is-operational/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It looks like it's having a fairly rocky start, they've spent quite a bit of time offline so far this month.

Today at 3:15PM (when the page below is updated) noted that unit 1 was completely offline and units 2-3 were operating at reduced capacity.

http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/OutageManagement/UnitStatus.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hope they fix whatever issues they're having, more solar power is definitely a good thing!
 
It seems that not only are these plants costly in terms of money and the loss of wild desert lands, they also kill birds:
The Wall Street Journal said:
BrightSource wants to build a second tower-based solar farm in California's Riverside County, east of Palm Springs. But the state Energy Commission in December proposed that the company instead use more conventional technologies, such as solar panels or mirrored troughs.

One reason: the BrightSource system appears to be scorching birds that fly through the intense heat surrounding the towers, which can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The company, which is based in Oakland, Calif., reported finding dozens of dead birds at the Ivanpah plant over the past several months, while workers were testing the plant before it started operating in December. Some of the dead birds appeared to have singed or burned feathers, according to federal biologists and documents filed with the state Energy Commission.

Regulators said they anticipated that some birds would be killed once the Ivanpah plant started operating, but that they didn't expect so many to die during the plant's construction and testing. The dead birds included a peregrine falcon, a grebe, two hawks, four nighthawks and a variety of warblers and sparrows. State and federal regulators are overseeing a two-year study of the facility's effects on birds.
Fortunately, the regulators are taking note:
The Wall Street Journal said:
The company put plans for a third California solar farm on indefinite hold last year, and it abandoned a proposed fourth project for which it had sought state approval in 2011.

In response to BrightSource's blueprint for its second big solar farm in Riverside County, near Joshua Tree National Park, biologists working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told state regulators that they were concerned that heat produced by the project could kill golden eagles and other protected species.
So, the benefits of PV on rooftops include the following:

1) Less expensive to install.
2) Less expensive to operate.
3) More reliable.
4) Electricity produced is distributed.
5) Moves control of electricity production toward consumer.
6) Enhances life of underlying roof materials.
7) Does not consume any land.
8) Does not kill wildlife.

If we need some storage on the grid, then we should be looking at how to apply the millions of spent EV batteries which are coming to build a distributed energy storage system.

Put me squarely in the camp which prefers roof-mounted PV over centralized solar thermal plants.
 
California has a renewable portfolio standard that requires utilities in the state get 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Therefore, we need both rooftop and utility scale solar. Not everyone can put a system on their house due to shading from trees or other structures. What about rentals? Also many coastal areas don't get much morning sun due to the marine layer that keeps solar output low until that burns off in the late morning. Note that there is quite of bit of solar "behind the meter" (customer side) already. This looks like a reduction in load to the system. The all time peak for the ISO occurred in 2006, subsequent years have been a few thousand MW less.

I looked back earlier in this thread and saw my first post which was touting a 840MW solar peak on 6/14/2012. Yesterday (2/13/2014) saw a peak of ~3400MW! That is all utility side solar. :shock:
 
JeremyW said:
California has a renewable portfolio standard that requires utilities in the state get 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020.
No matter what the cost to the environment!
JeremyW said:
Therefore, we need both rooftop and utility scale solar.
Alternatively, the laws could be adjusted so that they promote the solutions which provide the most benefit to the environment. Just because this power plant produces electricity from the sun does not mean that itbests good solution for the environment. There are still lots of places where PV can be sited on rooftops or over parking lots and have a much lower negative impact on the environment than these extremely damaging solar thermal plants.
 
RegGuheert said:
There are still lots of places where PV can be sited on rooftops or over parking lots and have a much lower negative impact on the environment than these extremely damaging solar thermal plants.
I don't think that you'll find many people arguing that rooftop solar is a better way to go, but for utilities, it comes down to cost and large scale solar is cheaper than rooftop solar.

I disagree with your opinion that Ivanpah is "extremely damaging". Yes, the plant has displaced some wildlife and will kill some birds. But if you were truly worried about birds, you'd be ranting against buildings, powerlines and vehicles which are responsible for huge numbers of avian deaths (in approximate order of magnitude).

Ivanpah is not perfect, but it's a lot better than most of the alternatives.
 
drees said:
RegGuheert said:
There are still lots of places where PV can be sited on rooftops or over parking lots and have a much lower negative impact on the environment than these extremely damaging solar thermal plants.
I don't think that you'll find many people arguing that rooftop solar is a better way to go, but for utilities, it comes down to cost and large scale solar is cheaper than rooftop solar.

I disagree with your opinion that Ivanpah is "extremely damaging". Yes, the plant has displaced some wildlife and will kill some birds. But if you were truly worried about birds, you'd be ranting against buildings, powerlines and vehicles which are responsible for huge numbers of avian deaths (in approximate order of magnitude).

Ivanpah is not perfect, but it's a lot better than most of the alternatives.
+1----I'd like to see development of a rooftop system that would kill the damn crows/blackbirds that hang around my yard, pooping all over, squawking constantly, eating my fruit trees, and chasing other birds away. :evil:
 
Back
Top