$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.
Reg, check out the California Solar Initiative. CSI provides more than $2 billion worth of incentives to customers for installing photovoltaic, and electricity displacing solar thermal systems in the three California Investor-Owned Utilities service territories. (Those territories cover about 80% of the state) Lancaster was the first city to require photovoltaics on new construction. Honestly that makes total sense, since it's a small price on a new building. Again, the emphasis in California is both utility and customer owned generation. There are a lot of incentives ether way. We also receive a ton of sunlight! (See picture on first page) :)

There are quite a number of utility scale plants in California. Ivanpah is not the first, just currently the largest thermal one.
 
JeremyW said:
Lancaster was the first city to require photovoltaics on new construction. Honestly that makes total sense, since it's a small price on a new building.
I'm a big fan of this approach. Hopefully it is implemented in a meaningful way by the government.
JeremyW said:
Again, the emphasis in California is both utility and customer owned generation. There are a lot of incentives ether way. We also receive a ton of sunlight! (See picture on first page) :)

There are quite a number of utility scale plants in California. Ivanpah is not the first, just currently the largest thermal one.
Understood. But as the article points out, it seems permits for future versions of this plant are not forthcoming due to concerns about the potential impact on endangered birds.
drees said:
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).
Buildings, power lines, vehicles or even wind turbines do not kill the *entire* bird population in the area. I imagine this plant creating a kill zone in which any bird trying to nest will eventually die, with the risk reducing as they move outside of that zone. While birds can get killed by the threats you mentioned, most live in harmony with them. In fact, I'm convinced that hawks benefit from highways overall, even though they sometimes get hit by cars. Highways seem to be one of their favorite places to hunt. I'm not sure why, but I suspect a lot of mice live in the median.
 
RegGuheert said:
JeremyW said:
Lancaster was the first city to require photovoltaics on new construction. Honestly that makes total sense, since it's a small price on a new building.
I'm a big fan of this approach. Hopefully it is implemented in a meaningful way by the government.
JeremyW said:
Again, the emphasis in California is both utility and customer owned generation. There are a lot of incentives ether way. We also receive a ton of sunlight! (See picture on first page) :)

There are quite a number of utility scale plants in California. Ivanpah is not the first, just currently the largest thermal one.
Understood. But as the article points out, it seems permits for future versions of this plant are not forthcoming due to concerns about the potential impact on endangered birds.
I suspect the main reason is that since these plants were designed, PV has become cheaper than CSP. Google pulled out of investing in CSP (after this plant) for just that reason. We'll need both rooftop and central PV, because there isn't anywhere near enough roof space to cover all the load even at the best current commodity PV efficiency.

As to environmental issues, because Ivanpah was the first of a large number of big new solar plants applying for permits in the desert, the hearings held by the CEC were extensive, and every environmental group who wanted to testify about anything relevant did so. The hearing trancripts are online, and unless you want to learn far more about the desert tortoise's behavior than is likely, I suggest you don't bother reading them. I did read the transcript of the entire last round of hearings, and while various bird issues were brought up, I don't recall a single person raising an issue with heat killing or damaging them. Which is odd, because Ivanpah isn't the first CSP tower in the Mojave - Solar One, built by Bright Source's predecessor company Luz, has been there for a couple of decades.

We'll still need storage to move completely off fossil fuels, so the question is whether we do it via CSP, CAS, pumped storage, batteries or what have you.
 
drees said:
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).
Don't forget cats... they're even worse than vehicles..
 
GRA said:
I suspect the main reason is that since these plants were designed, PV has become cheaper than CSP. Google pulled out of investing in CSP (after this plant) for just that reason.
And not just a little cheaper. It is a LOT cheaper now. $144/MWh for PV versus $262/MWh for solar thermal. Note the big win in terms of O&M costs for PV. It costs less to install AND less to operate while being more benign to the environment.
GRA said:
We'll need both rooftop and central PV, because there isn't anywhere near enough roof space to cover all the load even at the best current commodity PV efficiency.
I'm not convinced. As mentioned, parking lots are an ideal location for PV since they provide multiple benefits including better vehicle environment, reduced solar heating exactly where you have the issue and significant area.
GRA said:
As to environmental issues, because Ivanpah was the first of a large number of big new solar plants applying for permits in the desert, the hearings held by the CEC were extensive, and every environmental group who wanted to testify about anything relevant did so. The hearing trancripts are online, and unless you want to learn far more about the desert tortoise's behavior than is likely, I suggest you don't bother reading them. I did read the transcript of the entire last round of hearings, and while various bird issues were brought up, I don't recall a single person raising an issue with heat killing or damaging them. Which is odd, because Ivanpah isn't the first CSP tower in the Mojave - Solar One, built by Bright Source's predecessor company Luz, has been there for a couple of decades.
Thanks for the summary. Interesting that environmentalists did not put some focus on birds getting cooked...
GRA said:
We'll still need storage to move completely off fossil fuels, so the question is whether we do it via CSP, CAS, pumped storage, batteries or what have you.
Agreed. And likely many approaches will be needed. Like generation, I am always in favor of storing energy at the load if it can be made practicable. In many cases, I think relatively simple changes in the design of many types of small loads can greatly reduce our overall need for centralized storage. (A simple example of a low-cost solution to energy storage is to oversize well-water pressure tanks and modify their controls to preclude nighttime pumping.). As mentioned, I think one thing we need to do is ensure we repurpose any and all used EV batteries into distributed grid support roles. It makes little sense to recycle these things until we have gotten as much life as we can from them. Perhaps that is even more attractive in the long run than V2G since any battery wear out does OT penalize the vehicle itself.

Unfortunately, the focus of utility incentives today is to INCREASE nighttime loads and DECREASE daytime loads. The current approach supports the use of fossil fuels, but what we need for solar is to move the peak loads to better match PV production.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
We'll need both rooftop and central PV, because there isn't anywhere near enough roof space to cover all the load even at the best current commodity PV efficiency.
I'm not convinced. As mentioned, parking lots are an ideal location for PV since they provide multiple benefits including better vehicle environment, reduced solar heating exactly where you have the issue and significant area.
Using parking lots help*, but IIRR even using all covered over area other than roads themselves in the U.S., there isn't enough surface area. I don't have the figures handy so don't hold me to it, but IIRR there's something like 130,000 km^2 of paved or covered-over surface area in this country, including all roads. The area of cities not including their streets is a fairly small fraction of that.

*We've got several such lots with PV canopies in my city, mostly government-owned. There's more area devoted to parking lots in cities than there is to urban streets. But before we start covering all parking lots with PV canopies, let's first consider whether it makes more sense to rationalize our cities by eliminating 'free' public parking and boosting the price of paid parking to reflect the true cost, using much of the freed-up space provided by then-unneeded parking lots to re-build high-density, walkable mixed-use downtowns. If you have high-density, then while the city core may be smaller you reduce the roof space per capita in it, and need to have more solar capacity outside the city.
 
Wiki says total U.S. 'impervious' surface is 43,000 sq. miles or 110,000 km^2, and that typically roofs make up about 1/3rd of that, but the percentages vary depending on the kind of development/density:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
GRA said:
Wiki says total U.S. 'impervious' surface is 43,000 sq. miles or 110,000 km^2, and that typically roofs make up about 1/3rd of that, but the percentages vary depending on the kind of development/density:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks!

I find that electricity consumption in the US is 3,886,400,000 MWh/yr in 2010/.

So, what percent of the available impervious surface would be required to proved that much PV-powered electricity in one year:

Assumptions:
- 15% PV conversion efficiency
- Average insolation of 1kW/m^2
- Average sunlight on fixed-angle PV is 4 full-sun-hours/day
- Infinite, lossless storage (of course that is not realistic!)

3.9E9 MWh/year * 1000 kWh/MWh * 1 year / 365 days * 1 day / 4 hours sun * 1 m^2 / 1 kW / 0.15 * 1 km^2 / 1000000 m^2 = ~18,000 km^2 of PV.

In other words, if we cover ~16% of all of the impervious surface with PV, we could provide all of the electricity used in the US. I have no idea if that fraction is doable. Germany puts PV next to roads rather than on them, so perhaps it is.

In any case, it seems we are at least on the same order as the need. Improvements in both load and PV efficiencies can only help. We need to continue to add PV where we can. If it is reliable enough, it should eventually equal a real fraction of our production, just as it does today in Germany.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Wiki says total U.S. 'impervious' surface is 43,000 sq. miles or 110,000 km^2, and that typically roofs make up about 1/3rd of that, but the percentages vary depending on the kind of development/density:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impervious_surface" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks!

I find that electricity consumption in the US is 3,886,400,000 MWh/yr in 2010/.

So, what percent of the available impervious surface would be required to proved that much PV-powered electricity in one year:

Assumptions:
- 15% PV conversion efficiency
- Average insolation of 1kW/m^2
- Average sunlight on fixed-angle PV is 4 full-sun-hours/day
- Infinite, lossless storage (of course that is not realistic!)

3.9E9 MWh/year * 1000 kWh/MWh * 1 year / 365 days * 1 day / 4 hours sun * 1 m^2 / 1 kW / 0.15 * 1 km^2 / 1000000 m^2 = ~18,000 km^2 of PV.

In other words, if we cover ~16% of all of the impervious surface with PV, we could provide all of the electricity used in the US. I have no idea if that fraction is doable. Germany puts PV next to roads rather than on them, so perhaps it is.

In any case, it seems we are at least on the same order as the need. Improvements in both load and PV efficiencies can only help. We need to continue to add PV where we can. If it is reliable enough, it should eventually equal a real fraction of our production, just as it does today in Germany.
It's long been known that a 100 x 100 mile square in the Nevada desert, if covered with PV modules, could meet all our electricity demand (ignoring the need for storage, transmission etc). Higher PV efficiencies will help, but at the moment, cities just don't have enough roof/lot space (correctly oriented) to make it work. An awful lot of the 'street' impervious surface in cities is actually primarily for parallel parking, so I suppose you _could_ cantilever panels out over it. Of course, a better usage would be to use that space for buildings and decrease the street widths, thus also reducing the urban heat island effect. I don't remember the specific fractions of space devoted to driving versus parking lanes: the details are almost certainly in Shoup, Donald C.; "The High Cost of Free Parking". The book is quite large, but here's the original paper that was expanded into the book: http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I love the quote at the start.

Anyway, the typical U.S. urban/suburban two-lane street has a couple of 10 or 11 foot wide lanes plus an 8 foot parking 'lane' on each side. I can see serious liability issues with cantilevering over the street, though, in addition to any cost, technical or aesthetic objections.
 
GRA said:
It's long been known that a 100 x 100 mile square in the Nevada desert, if covered with PV modules, could meet all our electricity demand (ignoring the need for storage, transmission etc).
I've always hated that claim. The idea of putting PV in the desert, simply because there is more insulation there, is a bad one. Just like building this Ivanpah plant at twice the per-kWh price of PV is a bad one. PV is best sited at the load.
GRA said:
Higher PV efficiencies will help, but at the moment, cities just don't have enough roof/lot space (correctly oriented) to make it work. An awful lot of the 'street' impervious surface in cities is actually primarily for parallel parking, so I suppose you _could_ cantilever panels out over it. Of course, a better usage would be to use that space for buildings and decrease the street widths, thus also reducing the urban heat island effect. I don't remember the specific fractions of space devoted to driving versus parking lanes: the details are almost certainly in Shoup, Donald C.; "The High Cost of Free Parking". The book is quite large, but here's the original paper that was expanded into the book: http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I love the quote at the start.

Anyway, the typical U.S. urban/suburban two-lane street has a couple of 10 or 11 foot wide lanes plus an 8 foot parking 'lane' on each side. I can see serious liability issues with cantilevering over the street, though, in addition to any cost, technical or aesthetic objections.
Regardless of all these complaints, we have a massive quantity of places where PV can be sited that are not being used. Building an expensive solar-thermal plant in pristine desert at twice the price of PV is not a good environmental solution, IMO.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
It's long been known that a 100 x 100 mile square in the Nevada desert, if covered with PV modules, could meet all our electricity demand (ignoring the need for storage, transmission etc).
I've always hated that claim. The idea of putting PV in the desert, simply because there is more insulation there, is a bad one. Just like building this Ivanpah plant at twice the per-kWh price of PV is a bad one. PV is best sited at the load.
I think your last statement is too categorical, so we'll have to disagree on that. Having designed my share of AE systems, my take would be PV (or any other intermittent renewable) is best sited wherever it's best sited. Could be at the load, could be many miles away. Many factors determine where the 'best' place is.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Higher PV efficiencies will help, but at the moment, cities just don't have enough roof/lot space (correctly oriented) to make it work. An awful lot of the 'street' impervious surface in cities is actually primarily for parallel parking, so I suppose you _could_ cantilever panels out over it. Of course, a better usage would be to use that space for buildings and decrease the street widths, thus also reducing the urban heat island effect. I don't remember the specific fractions of space devoted to driving versus parking lanes: the details are almost certainly in Shoup, Donald C.; "The High Cost of Free Parking". The book is quite large, but here's the original paper that was expanded into the book: http://www.uctc.net/papers/351.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. I love the quote at the start.

Anyway, the typical U.S. urban/suburban two-lane street has a couple of 10 or 11 foot wide lanes plus an 8 foot parking 'lane' on each side. I can see serious liability issues with cantilevering over the street, though, in addition to any cost, technical or aesthetic objections.
Regardless of all these complaints, we have a massive quantity of places where PV can be sited that are not being used. Building an expensive solar-thermal plant in pristine desert at twice the price of PV is not a good environmental solution, IMO.
Sure, I'm not saying that rooftop PV isn't a good option in many cases, and there are many places it could go. However, I think you're applying 20/20 hindsight in calling Ivanpah 'expensive', cause when it was designed CSP was cheaper. Although it seems unlikely, that could change back. And you still have to factor in the cost of equivalent storage or other generation when comparing it to PV, before you can call it expensive. The fact is that if not CSP, there'll be lots of PV in the desert.

As to pristine desert, well, very little of the desert is pristine, especially when an Interstate passes through it a couple of hundred yards away; there's also a golf course within a couple of miles. Let's just say 'less directly affected by human activity' and leave it at that.
 
RegGuheert said:
I've always hated that claim. The idea of putting PV in the desert, simply because there is more insulation there, is a bad one.

To me the claim illustrates how little of the U.S. area is needed to supply our entire electrical supply, not necessarily suggesting that it all be sited at one place in the Nevada desert. It's thought-provoking; not a plan.
 
I'm posting GRA's recent post on Ivanpah in this thread so that we can discuss it on-topic:

GRA said:
Issues at Ivanpah and solar-thermal in general, via the WSJ. Nothing we didn't already know, but this provides more details:
High-Tech Solar Projects Fail to Deliver
$2.2 billion California project generates 40% of expected electricity
http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-tech-solar-projects-fail-to-deliver-1434138485" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Part:
. . . The $2.2 billion Ivanpah solar power project in California’s Mojave Desert is supposed to be generating more than a million megawatt-hours of electricity each year. But 15 months after starting up, the plant is producing just 40% of that, according to data from the U.S. Energy Department. . . .

Turns out, there is a lot more to go wrong with the new technology. Replacing broken equipment and learning better ways to operate the complex assortment of machinery has stalled Ivanpah’s ability to reach full potential, said Randy Hickok, a senior vice president at NRG. New solar-thermal technology isn’t as simple as traditional solar panel installations. Since older solar photovoltaic panels have been around for decades, they improve in efficiency and price every year, he said.

“There’s a lot more on-the-job learning with Ivanpah,” Mr. Hickok said, adding that engineers have had to fix leaky tubes connected to water boilers and contend with a vibrating steam turbine that threatened nearby equipment.

One big miscalculation was that the power plant requires far more steam to run smoothly and efficiently than originally thought, according to a document filed with the California Energy Commission. Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much help from fossil fuels to get the plant humming every morning. Another unexpected problem: not enough sun. Weather predictions for the area underestimated the amount of cloud cover that has blanketed Ivanpah since it went into service in 2013.

Ivanpah isn’t the only new solar-thermal project struggling to energize the grid. A large mirror-powered plant built in Arizona almost two years ago by Abengoa SA of Spain has also had its share of hiccups. Designed to deliver a million megawatt hours of power annually, the plant is putting out roughly half that, federal data show.

NRG and Abengoa say their plants will reach power targets once the kinks are worked out.

In contrast, incremental improvements to traditional solar panels have allowed SunPower Corp. to get more electricity than it originally thought it could from its 1,500-acre solar farm. California Valley Solar Ranch was designed to produce 600,000 megawatt-hours a year in 2013 when it started operating, but today it can generate up to 4% more. . . .

Solar-thermal developers including Abengoa and BrightSource continue to build new plants in South Africa, Chile and China. But Lucas Davis, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, says it is unlikely more U.S. projects will gain traction as utilities opt for cheaper solar farms that use panels.

“I don’t expect a lot of solar thermal to get built. It’s just too expensive,” he said. . . .

Electricity prices from new solar farms average around 5 cents a kilowatt-hour, according to GTM Research, which tracks renewable energy markets. That compares with between 12 and 25 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity generated by the Ivanpah power plant, state and federal data show.

It is unclear how much power would cost from a brand new solar-thermal plant, but it would be more than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour, said Parthiv Kurup, an analyst at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colo. . . .

Even if solar-thermal developers could offer the same power prices as their solar-panel rivals do, solar-thermal plants face environmental hurdles in the U.S.

The Ivanpah plant was delayed several months and had millions of dollars in cost overruns because of wildlife protections for the endangered Desert Tortoise. Once built, U.S. government biologists found the plant’s superheated mirrors were killing birds. In April, biologists working for the state estimated that 3,500 birds died at Ivanpah in the span of a year, many of them burned alive while flying through a part of the solar installment where air temperatures can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Bird carnage combined with opposition by Native American tribes to industrial projects on undeveloped land has made California regulators wary of approving more. Last September, Abengoa and BrightSource abandoned their quest to build a solar-thermal project near Joshua Tree National Park when the state regulator told them the plant’s footprint would have to be cut in half.

In March the Board of Supervisors of Inyo County, a sparsely populated part of California that is home to Death Valley National Park, voted to ban solar-thermal power plants altogether. “Ivanpah had a significant effect on the decision making,” said Joshua Hart, the county’s planning director.

That $0.05/kWh for utility-scale intertied PV is very encouraging. What's wind now, about $0.03/kWh (it was averaging about $0.04/kWh in 2011-2012)?
 
GRA said:
Issues at Ivanpah and solar-thermal in general, via the WSJ. Nothing we didn't already know, but this provides more details: ...
Here is another link to the same article at Marketwatch (which is not paywalled): High-tech solar projects fail to deliver

Note that if you need to burn four hours' worth of natural gas in the morning to get this thing started every morning, then it seems the major benefit of these solar-thermal-electric plant is not such a strong proposition:
drees said:
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.
IMO, it would make much more sense to install PV at 1/3 the cost and at lower environmental impact and burn the four hours' worth of natural gas in the evening when the demand is in place.

On top of all this, the investors have asked for a $539M bailout for to help payoff their government-backed loan:
IBD said:
But now its owners — NRG, Web giant Google and BrightSource Energy in Oakland, Calif. — are hoping to secure a $539 million federal grant to help pay off their $1.6 billion federal loan.
I'm sorry, but if these companies wish to make such poor investments, then they need to be prepared to suffer the consequences without additional taxpayer support.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Issues at Ivanpah and solar-thermal in general, via the WSJ. Nothing we didn't already know, but this provides more details: ...
Here is another link to the same article at Marketwatch (which is not paywalled): High-tech solar projects fail to deliver

Note that if you need to burn four hours' worth of natural gas in the morning to get this thing started every morning, then it seems the major benefit of these solar-thermal-electric plant is not such a strong proposition:
drees said:
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.
IMO, it would make much more sense to install PV at 1/3 the cost and at lower environmental impact and burn the four hours' worth of natural gas in the evening when the demand is in place.

On top of all this, the investors have asked for a $539M bailout for to help payoff their government-backed loan:
IBD said:
But now its owners — NRG, Web giant Google and BrightSource Energy in Oakland, Calif. — are hoping to secure a $539 million federal grant to help pay off their $1.6 billion federal loan.
I'm sorry, but if these companies wish to make such poor investments, then they need to be prepared to suffer the consequences without additional taxpayer support.
Agreed on the need to burn so much NG; what we don't know is if this is inherent (seems questionable, as a 300% underestimate would be a major design screw-up) or just part of the teething troubles. As for the lack of insolation, well, it's like Mark Twain said, everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it! They certainly had insolation data, and designed the plant based on that.

Re it being a 'poor investment,' remember that at the time of design and financing CSP was considerably cheaper than PV. No one was expecting PV prices to drop like a stone owing to China's entry, and the delayed permitting due to environmental review pushed the plant back far enough to get caught. As the permitting process dragged on the economics changed, and Google at that point decided that they wouldn't be involved in CSP beyond Ivanpah. Which is an entirely different matter from whether they should get a government bailout. I still think it's a useful exercise to see just how valuable the ability to time shift is, and to compare it with other forms of storage used with PV (or just burning the NG directly, as you say).
 
GRA said:
Agreed on the need to burn so much NG; what we don't know is if this is inherent (seems questionable, as a 300% underestimate would be a major design screw-up) or just part of the teething troubles.
It seems like a major design screw-up at this point. They clearly didn't know enough to build this thing. A small pilot project should have been built first.
GRA said:
As for the lack of insolation, well, it's like Mark Twain said, everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it! They certainly had insolation data, and designed the plant based on that.
We have outstanding insolation data in the US, but it is not perfect. This reminds me of something SolarGuppy once wrote about the fact that "experts" didn't believe him when he told them that his arrays produced MORE electricity if he pointed them east rather than south. All the data said to point south, but he had the results to prove it. The issue was that he lived in Florida where afternoon thunderstorms were the norm. Pointing the arrays east caused them to have optimal performance in the morning when it was not raining and therefore allowed them to produce more overall electricity. Something similar may have played a role in this project.
GRA said:
Re it being a 'poor investment,' remember that at the time of design and financing CSP was considerably cheaper than PV. No one was expecting PV prices to drop like a stone owing to China's entry, and the delayed permitting due to environmental review pushed the plant back far enough to get caught. As the permitting process dragged on the economics changed, and Google at that point decided that they wouldn't be involved in CSP beyond Ivanpah. Which is an entirely different matter from whether they should get a government bailout. I still think it's a useful exercise to see just how valuable the ability to time shift is, and to compare it with other forms of storage used with PV (or just burning the NG directly, as you say).
I could be wrong, but I don't think PV was at $0.15/kWh even when they started this project. The bottom line is that I'm not in favor of corporations taking risks and getting the benefits of the profits if they succeed, but passing on the losses to the taxpayer if they do poorly.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Agreed on the need to burn so much NG; what we don't know is if this is inherent (seems questionable, as a 300% underestimate would be a major design screw-up) or just part of the teething troubles.
It seems like a major design screw-up at this point. They clearly didn't know enough to build this thing. A small pilot project should have been built first.
There have been plenty of CSP plants before this, including some in the Mojave (Luz Solar 1 and 2). I"m beginning to wonder about that '4 times as much' number, as the change in their permit only upped their total allowed yearly NG usage from 328 to 525 MMSCF per boiler pair. See http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/07-AFC-05C/TN203064_20140915T132932_ISEGS_Order_Approving_Petition_to_Amend.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
As for the lack of insolation, well, it's like Mark Twain said, everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it! They certainly had insolation data, and designed the plant based on that.
We have outstanding insolation data in the US, but it is not perfect. This reminds me of something SolarGuppy once wrote about the fact that "experts" didn't believe him when he told them that his arrays produced MORE electricity if he pointed them east rather than south. All the data said to point south, but he had the results to prove it. The issue was that he lived in Florida where afternoon thunderstorms were the norm. Pointing the arrays east caused them to have optimal performance in the morning when it was not raining and therefore allowed them to produce more overall electricity. Something similar may have played a role in this project.
Don't see how it could, as these are central power towers surrounded by mirrors, not a fixed array (and such local variations for fixed PV are well known. Here in the Bay Area, it's often worthwhile to point your panels west of south, because in the summer it's often overcast in the morning). No, I think it's just weather variation from the average.

RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
Re it being a 'poor investment,' remember that at the time of design and financing CSP was considerably cheaper than PV. No one was expecting PV prices to drop like a stone owing to China's entry, and the delayed permitting due to environmental review pushed the plant back far enough to get caught. As the permitting process dragged on the economics changed, and Google at that point decided that they wouldn't be involved in CSP beyond Ivanpah. Which is an entirely different matter from whether they should get a government bailout. I still think it's a useful exercise to see just how valuable the ability to time shift is, and to compare it with other forms of storage used with PV (or just burning the NG directly, as you say).
I could be wrong, but I don't think PV was at $0.15/kWh even when they started this project. The bottom line is that I'm not in favor of corporations taking risks and getting the benefits of the profits if they succeed, but passing on the losses to the taxpayer if they do poorly.
The project was begun in the last decade (2007? NLT 2009), and was also downsized during the course of environmental review. Then you have to remember that the cost of generation is only part of the equation, there's also storage (or use of fossil-fuels instead) that has to be considered; these were CSP plants _with_ storage. As to your point about 'heads I win, tails you lose' bailouts, I don't disagree.
 
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
As for the lack of insolation, well, it's like Mark Twain said, everyone talks about the weather but no one does anything about it! They certainly had insolation data, and designed the plant based on that.
We have outstanding insolation data in the US, but it is not perfect. This reminds me of something SolarGuppy once wrote about the fact that "experts" didn't believe him when he told them that his arrays produced MORE electricity if he pointed them east rather than south. All the data said to point south, but he had the results to prove it. The issue was that he lived in Florida where afternoon thunderstorms were the norm. Pointing the arrays east caused them to have optimal performance in the morning when it was not raining and therefore allowed them to produce more overall electricity. Something similar may have played a role in this project.
Don't see how it could, as these are central power towers surrounded by mirrors, not a fixed array (and such local variations for fixed PV are well known. Here in the Bay Area, it's often worthwhile to point your panels west of south, because in the summer it's often overcast in the morning). No, I think it's just weather variation from the average.
The point is that insolation data (from NREL, anyway) does not tell you what the clouds do throughout the day in different seasons. So how do you design such a system with average data for any given month of the year? The simple answer is that you cannot, since you cannot answer simple questions such as "Are there light clouds all day long reducing the insolation?" or "Is the sunlight time-modulated by very dense clouds?" and "If so, when do they occur?"

This fact that turbines do not achieve high efficiency if not consistently run at high power levels is exactly the same issue plaguing the world's most efficient gas turbine power plant. In that case, operational limitations resulting from government regulations cause the efficiency to drop enough to make the plant uneconomical to operate. I suspect the operator's threat to shut it down is just a ploy to get government handouts, but the fact remains that these modern, high-tech turbines achieve their excellent results only under a limited range of operating parameters.
 
GRA said:
Then you have to remember that the cost of generation is only part of the equation, there's also storage (or use of fossil-fuels instead) that has to be considered; these were CSP plants _with_ storage. As to your point about 'heads I win, tails you lose' bailouts, I don't disagree.
Ivapnah does not contain any storage.
 
RegGuheert said:
GRA said:
RegGuheert said:
We have outstanding insolation data in the US, but it is not perfect. This reminds me of something SolarGuppy once wrote about the fact that "experts" didn't believe him when he told them that his arrays produced MORE electricity if he pointed them east rather than south. All the data said to point south, but he had the results to prove it. The issue was that he lived in Florida where afternoon thunderstorms were the norm. Pointing the arrays east caused them to have optimal performance in the morning when it was not raining and therefore allowed them to produce more overall electricity. Something similar may have played a role in this project.
Don't see how it could, as these are central power towers surrounded by mirrors, not a fixed array (and such local variations for fixed PV are well known. Here in the Bay Area, it's often worthwhile to point your panels west of south, because in the summer it's often overcast in the morning). No, I think it's just weather variation from the average.
The point is that insolation data (from NREL, anyway) does not tell you what the clouds do throughout the day in different seasons. So how do you design such a system with average data for any given month of the year? The simple answer is that you cannot, since you cannot answer simple questions such as "Are there light clouds all day long reducing the insolation?" or "Is the sunlight time-modulated by very dense clouds?" and "If so, when do they occur?" <snip>
Reg, are you saying that anyone building a utility-scale multi-million dollar solar plant wouldn't put up their own monitoring equipment on a site to track solar irradiance minute by minute for a year or more? Such data is widely available from inexpensive sensors - I've used that from the CDEC remote snow survey sensors, most of which also record data for temp, wind speed, solar max/min/avg insolation in W/m2 by the hour/daily/monthly, etc. If you want to monitor it by the minute or by the second, you can do that as well. Here's some:
http://eko-eu.com/products/photovoltaic-evaluation-systems/solar-monitoring-stations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No one building such a plant is going to do so without far more granular data than is likely to be available from NREL. What's accurate enough for for a homeowner isn't going to cut it for a commercial installation.
 
Back
Top