# World's largest solar plant now online



## Dot Com (Feb 13, 2014)

in MURICA too deniers:

The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today


> The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is now operational and delivering solar electricity to California customers. At full capacity, the facility's trio of 450-foot high towers produces a gross total of 392 megawatts (MW) of solar power, enough electricity to provide 140,000 California homes with clean energy and avoid 400,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, equal to removing 72,000 vehicles off the road.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 13, 2014)

Now we kick back and wait for a hailstorm of Biblical proportions.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 13, 2014)

what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?



So what ARE the Vegas odds that this thing won't self-destruct?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 13, 2014)

These people hope this entire country fails.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 13, 2014)

Matthew said:


> These people hope this entire country fails.



Can't say we're not rootin' for you and Your New Messiah's plan!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?



Why would anybody hope it fails?  I think it's a great idea if it's cost effective and doesn't put an unneeded burden on families.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?



Please try to comprehend the difference between "hope" and "expectation" before further making an ass of yourself.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2014)

Its akin to a sand pebble on a beach s0n!!! Exceedingly costly ( never matters to the k00ks) and highly inefficient.


Solar is a joke.....makes only .2% ( that's a decimal in front of the 2) of our electricity!!!! w0w!!!!


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/solar-provides-02-electric-supply-002-obama


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 13, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?
> ...



I was speaking in Limbaughese smart guy


----------



## SwimExpert (Feb 13, 2014)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?
> ...



I was getting ready to say something similar.  I think that in the long run it will prove more cost efficient, as long as maintenance doesn't prove a major problem.  Hope the initial construction costs don't end up being too expensive for the consumers, though.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 13, 2014)

As long as we worship fossil fuels as the god given eternal flame, we can't even acknowledge what true scientific advancement this is. Capturing sun rays and making it cost-effective on this scale is a great stride in the right direction. Hmm, who knew there was value in supplying power whether or not there's a drop of oil or a mountain to be blown to bits...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 13, 2014)

Frankly, I think a desalination plant is far more urgent than solar given the expanse of population in the southwest desert regions.


----------



## joshuah (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> what else would you people do except "hope it fails"?



I'm a climate change skeptic but I'm excited about solar... just because I'm not convinced CO2 is making the earth dangerously warmer doesn't mean I like pollution from coal plants and the way it affects lungs, and mercury in fish, and everything else... sometimes negative externalities do exist.


----------



## joshuah (Feb 13, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Solar is a joke.....makes only .2% ( that's a decimal in front of the 2) of our electricity!!!! w0w!!!!



Afraid that's a very time-sensitive argument and not a very good one... "It's only 0.02%!!!" they said a while back... And awhile from now "It's only 2%!!!" then "It's only 20%???" If it's inherently problematic, maybe it won't keep growing but right now it's growing fast and just because it's still small doesn't make a case one way or the other for how good it will be or how good it can get. Horse drawn carriages probably said the same thing about cars a hundred years ago.


----------



## HenryBHough (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> I was speaking in Limbaughese smart guy



I guess that is a risk of kneeling in front of your radio in a darkened room.  Do you get a thrill when you lay hands on the cabinet or has that worn off for you?


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 13, 2014)

can't you find a denier-friendly thread to post on? We're all full-up w/ denier zaniness here


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> can't you find a denier-friendly thread to post on? We're all full-up w/ denier zaniness here



Zaniness is fun when you are always winning!!!!!


*Solar Provides 0.2% of Electric Supply--Up From 0.02% Before Obama* 
January 29, 2014 - 5:26 PM -


 See more at: Solar Provides 0.2% of Electric Supply--Up From 0.02% Before Obama | CNS News





We love the zaniness of making the far left k00ks look stoopid.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 13, 2014)




----------



## Dot Com (Feb 13, 2014)

This message is hidden because skookerasbil is on your ignore list.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 13, 2014)




----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> This message is hidden because skookerasbil is on your ignore list.



is this possible? i was thinking the same damn thing! let me know, please. 

no offense kooks, i've noted how i appreciate you and respect you before but your ideas bring a foul odor of strife and early hominid tribalism.


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 14, 2014)

Anyone like fried birds?

oh well, who cares about birds anyway


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 14, 2014)

LMAO......if I'm on peoples IGNORE, that means I winning.


Oh.....ps..........*.2%*


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 14, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> LMAO......if I'm on peoples IGNORE, that means I winning.
> 
> 
> Oh.....ps..........*.2%*



The poor dear has just about everyone on ignore but it's lib buddies...then they go around slapping each other on the ass with atta boys...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 14, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO......if I'm on peoples IGNORE, that means I winning.
> ...





Indeed......there are a total of 3 absolute truths in life >>>


1) Death

2) Taxes

3) When a far lefty is getting pwned on facts, they go full blown mental OR walk away and ignore you. If I had a nickel for every instance............


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 14, 2014)




----------



## asterism (Feb 14, 2014)

$2.2 Billion to build.  That's expensive for only 140,000 homes.
NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System


Where does the water to clean the mirrors come from?


----------



## Stephanie (Feb 14, 2014)

2 BILLION dollars AND how much land?  to supply=140 thousand homes

so come on people, lets give these geniuses more OUR MONEY


----------



## Spiderman (Feb 14, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> As long as we worship fossil fuels as the god given eternal flame, we can't even acknowledge what true scientific advancement this is. Capturing sun rays and making it cost-effective on this scale is a great stride in the right direction. Hmm, who knew there was value in supplying power whether or not there's a drop of oil or a mountain to be blown to bits...



We don't know if it's cost effective until all government subsidies are removed.

But it certainly ruined the landscape.


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 14, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we worship fossil fuels as the god given eternal flame, we can't even acknowledge what true scientific advancement this is. Capturing sun rays and making it cost-effective on this scale is a great stride in the right direction. Hmm, who knew there was value in supplying power whether or not there's a drop of oil or a mountain to be blown to bits...
> ...



You're right. Good point.

Now as far as ruining the landscape, I disagree. You can dismantle the solar field and you'd have pretty much the same landscape.

As for coal, oil and natural gas, well, we know they like to blow up mountains and unintentionally leak between 2-17% of their annual output. Not to mention the spoiling of watersheds and ground water.

We don't calculate these sorts of things called natural capital, when it comes to fossil fuels or anything. Why? Because we've bowed before economics and agree that life and biodiversity are externalities, not essential. Last time I checked the Earth was not external to our needs but hey, go figure.

So you're right, we simply won't know the true cost and how to compare it until we calculate natural capital and remove consumer and company subsidies from both solar and fossil fuels.

Read more about natural capital here:
Natural capital - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gnarlylove (Feb 14, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


>



This is why you need to be put on ignore.

You prefer to be a Roman Barbarian than a Greek Philosopher. Your contributions are not information but rather wishes to remain in the year 1999. Change is evil to you but believe it or not change brings advancement to civilization. Without advancement there is only a stagnate idea to vanquish other humans.


----------



## mamooth (Feb 14, 2014)

But they found 11 dead birds at the solar plant in one month! Eleven! Therefore, all birds will be going extinct! The massacre of the birds ... nearly approaches that of a single office building, but it's still reason to put on a fake panic act!


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 14, 2014)

its a false idol to the denier's fossil fuel, sky pixie


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 5, 2014)

closer view:


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

Matthew said:


> These people hope this entire country fails.



Yep that is what being far left is all about, not only hoping and wishing for America to fail, but to help facilititate it's destruction.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 5, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > gnarlylove said:
> ...



Sierra Club, NRDC Sue Feds To Stop Big California Solar Power Project

Sierra Club, NRDC Sue Feds To Stop Big California Solar Power Project - Forbes

Also is this cost figured into the price as well?


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2014)

I flew over the plant today and, unsurprisingly, it wasn't operational.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 7, 2014)

Aren't solar panels toxic if broken?


----------



## elektra (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > gnarlylove said:
> ...



You must worship Fossil Fuel to produce the World's Largest Electrical Solar Plant that produces the least amount of electricity for its size. You see, to build something that is the world's largest, somehow that takes the LARGEST AMOUNT OF FOSSIL FUEL and NATURAL RESOURCES.

If us who are against this Solar Power Plant, who are you that does not even recognize that this SOLAR power plant has a *Natural gas fired boiler* at its center. This Solar Power plant can not operate without Natural Gas.

Further the natural gas is pumped with diesel powered pumps. Yes that is right, its a Diesel Powered/Natural Gas powered Solar plant.

Who is it that worships fossil fuel, you who is championing the increase use of Fossil Fuels by "Renewable" energy. 

Renewable Energy sources increase the burden of use on Fossil Fuels while the supporters of Renewable Energy are completely ignorant of this fact. 

This Solar Plant is a a *NATURAL GAS POWERED FOSSIL ENERGY PLANT*


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 7, 2014)

elektra, you are partially right, but that means you're actually wrong. There is input to output ratios to consider, one could call it the overhead.. So it takes resources and natural capital to build and erect a solar plant. However, upon completion and given it works, the plant reduces demand for FF. If the plant is able to remain operative for a few months it will have supplied its overhead in FF by cutting the equivalent emissions. That means it has repaid its pollution debt. Now comes the most important part....if the plant can continue to operate for say years after that, then it does what it sets out to do: reduce actual demand for FF.


----------



## westwall (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> elektra, you are partially right, but that means you're actually wrong. There is input to output ratios to consider, one could call it the overhead.. So it takes resources and natural capital to build and erect a solar plant. However, upon completion and given it works, the plant reduces demand for FF. If the plant is able to remain operative for a few months it will have supplied its overhead in FF by cutting the equivalent emissions. That means it has repaid its pollution debt. Now comes the most important part....if the plant can continue to operate for say years after that, then it does what it sets out to do: reduce actual demand for FF.












This plant (and this is one of the solar types I actually have hopes for) will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept) nor will it ever produce energy as efficiently as a FF plant.  That's why they built it AS a FF plant.....with solar thrown in to look good.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 7, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> in MURICA too deniers:
> 
> The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today
> 
> ...



So that's what all that was they were building next to the Nevada border.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 7, 2014)

westwall said:


> This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)



I think I'm wasting my time talking to you at all. You have clearly demonstrated no concern for intelligent debate. You assert what sounds right given according to the assumption your worldview and opinions are indisputable fact. The problem is people sharply disagree with you. Millions of people in America strongly think your basic premises are just utterly flawed. I know you don't, and you aren't open to the possibility that your ideas are reason deficient.

What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts? Which would be a fair assessment of how much energy went into making the components and erecting the plant. If you think the number is higher, why do you? 

At any rate, the amount of energy that went into this solar plant is finite. It is limited. So as long as the plant can stay operational, then it is certain its carbon debt will be repaid and many more times over... so you are just crapping nasty brown all over this message board. But your credibility never was very high.




westwall said:


> nor will it ever produce energy as efficiently as a FF plant.


What do you base this on? Has solar stop being capable of advancing? If history is a tell-tale sign, then solar prices have dropped every decade in significant ways...solar is now roughly .74 cents a watt. Fossil fuels are hardly lower, and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them, which keeps prices low unlike in the UK where gas is about 10 dollars a gallon. Our consumption subsidies were over 200 billion last year alone. (See subsidies on wikipedia)

Again, you are just shitting your pants when you make flippant remarks with no basis in reality.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Aren't solar panels toxic if broken?



Not exactly, but they are made from petroleum oddly enough.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

> What makes you say the solar power plant will never produce say 100,000 megawatts?



Because it is not possible now for that to happen. Maybe in 1000 years, but not now.

Also the world economy relies on fossil fuels, so you can not change that over night.

So are the AGW cultists willing to wait a 1000 years for solar to maybe become viable?


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)
> ...



good post.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The far left/AGW cultists ability to live in reality show up once again.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 7, 2014)

Kosh said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > gnarlylove said:
> ...



So anything that doesn't fit your assessment of reality is a cult, huh? Sounds like a cult-ish view to me. What's the problem with solar succeeding? It makes your entire worldview nonsensical. I mean you could be a little more reasonable about saying the carbon debt will never be repaid but somehow you just type words and expect them to be accepted as fact. Again, sounds like a cult view to me, I mean, c'mon, do you really think everything you say is fact that has no need of being supported by evidence?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



When the European nations are abandoning their alternative energy projects getting the US to enter into illegal wars like Libya for OIL, that is all the proof one needs that AGW is bunk.

Then again anyone that is informed on these matters would know that solar is not viable and that far left social programs trumps the Spector of AGW.

As I pointed it will be viable, but not in the short term as fossil fuels controls the world economy and what helps the far left stay in power in Europe (soon to the US if we are not careful).

When solar becomes viable as in not a 30 year pay off then you will see it take off, but that most likely happen in your or my life time.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 7, 2014)

Politics is not a good indicator as to the truth and validity of a scientific theory. But you clearly haven't the slightest clue what critical thinking is. You just speak what your little brain thinks as if it's fact. You need to read a book on logic and critical thinking, please. Otherwise, you just make no sense from an intelligent, objective perspective.

Politics is given to hyperbole and exaggeration and is heavily influenced by money. Science is not. Science says the direct opposite of what governments are doing.

If you think politics is an accurate gauge for reality, you are severely mistaken.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Politics is not a good indicator as to the truth and validity of a scientific theory. But you clearly haven't the slightest clue what critical thinking is. You just speak what your little brain thinks as if it's fact. You need to read a book on logic and critical thinking, please. Otherwise, you just make no sense from an intelligent, objective perspective.
> 
> Politics is given to hyperbole and exaggeration and is heavily influenced by money. Science is not. Science says the direct opposite of what governments are doing.
> 
> If you think politics is an accurate gauge for reality, you are severely mistaken.



Obviously you do as that is what is driving the AGW religion. And thus shows that anyone that believes in AGW is not connected to reality.

If these governments believed in AGW and believed AGW is the greatest WMD known to man they would favor alterative energy research instead of funding their over bloated social programs. Yet another reason why not to believe AGW is actual science. Anyone promoting AGW as science is definitely not connected to reality.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 7, 2014)

Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective



You are correct. Here's a sampling of his durpisms:  Kosh


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective



ANd how would that be different than anything the far left/AGW cultists post?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 7, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Check mark. Kosh is not worth addressing, stuck in their own world of spin doctoring everything to fit their narrow uneducated perspective
> ...



Says the far left Obama drone!


----------



## asterism (Mar 8, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Politics is not a good indicator as to the truth and validity of a scientific theory. But you clearly haven't the slightest clue what critical thinking is. You just speak what your little brain thinks as if it's fact. You need to read a book on logic and critical thinking, please. Otherwise, you just make no sense from an intelligent, objective perspective.
> 
> Politics is given to hyperbole and exaggeration and is heavily influenced by money. Science is not. Science says the direct opposite of what governments are doing.
> 
> If you think politics is an accurate gauge for reality, you are severely mistaken.



You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 8, 2014)

So the 100% of the peer reviewed academic journals called Nature, Biology, etc. are not science? So what is science if it isn't produced by credible researchers at renowned institutions, who are independent of one another and continually employ the scientific method in their research, data, and conclusions? You know, that 98% crowd? If not them, who?

I can't imagine you take yourself seriously with a phrase like that.

If science doesn't come from re-producible and verifiable reports, like the one's the 98% says, then there simply isn't science. In any other field where 98% of experts agree, virtually unanimous, we would at least consider it's possibility of being right. But even that isn't done. There was never a hope for this view because it halts the world economy. But it's either keep disregarding the science and trust the politicians and public and truncate the species, literally, or stop the rhetoric and lies and take major steps towards preserving a planet.

But don't believe, me! Please! GO read those journals yourself that publish after significant peer review has examined the material. If you can't respect this 98% of dedicated scientific researchers as at least attempting science, then you certainly can't trust things coming from Americans for Prosperity and other financial poop shoots.


----------



## asterism (Mar 8, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> So the 100% of the peer reviewed academic journals called Nature, Biology, etc. are not science? So what is science if it isn't produced by credible researchers at renowned institutions, who are independent of one another and continually employ the scientific method in their research, data, and conclusions? You know, that 98% crowd? If not them, who?
> 
> I can't imagine you take yourself seriously with a phrase like that.
> 
> ...



Garbage in garbage out.  The historical temperature record has been incorrectly adjusted and the original data are no longer available.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 8, 2014)

Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.


----------



## asterism (Mar 8, 2014)

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/


----------



## asterism (Mar 8, 2014)




----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

asterism said:


> You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.



And why should we take your likely uninformed and almost assuredly inadequately educated opinion over that of many thousands of actively researching, PhD climate scientists?


----------



## asterism (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > You point is true, but in my opinion most of the work that formed the foundation for AGW isn't science.
> ...



Don't take my word for it.  Research the educations of the original hockey stick authors and see if you think they were trained well enough in data management, statistics, and software development to be considered experts.  Then get the raw data, the original source code, and try to replicate their results.

You can also take a look at the now infamous "HARRY_READ_ME" file and see the many many errors.


Good luck trying to get that raw data though.  It doesn't exist.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 9, 2014)

Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things?  Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time.  I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise. 

Utter nonsense.  If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Utter nonsense.  If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.



There needs to be an internal question arising from the denialist meme-infected host--that is artemis.

so artemis needs to admit the possibility that his believes are false, propagated in the interests of money, not science. Indeed, we all must and should critically evaluate our views. But until this introspective event happens within artemis, we can expect no critical assessment or judgement. He is infected with denialism and the denialist meme tends to become extremist over time. Sadly the likelihood of artemis coming to this assess his own (false) claims is about as likely as a rich person making it into heaven (according to the bible).


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 9, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.



Funny how conservatives reach a conclusion first (nothing to see here, move along now) & then look for the data.


----------



## asterism (Mar 9, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things?  Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time.  I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise.
> 
> Utter nonsense.  If you can't see that... I just don't know what to say to you.



In fact, I do think that thousands of climate scientists have not looked at the foundation of the AGW theory.  Reproduction of results isn't really done much in climatology and certainly wasn't done much in the early days of this era.

Feynman spoke about this:




> One of the students told me she wanted to do an experiment that went something like this--it had been found by others that under certain circumstances, X, rats did something, A. She was curious as to whether, if she changed the circumstances to Y, they would still do A. So her proposal was to do the experiment under circumstances Y and see if they still did A.
> 
> I explained to her that it was necessary first to repeat in her laboratory the experiment of the other person--to do it under condition X to see if she could also get result A, and then change to Y and see if A changed. Then she would know that the real difference was the thing she thought she had under control.
> 
> ...



"Cargo Cult Science" - by Richard Feynman


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2014)

asterism said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


*
There have been more than a dozen studies since the original Mann Graph was published. All have supported that graph. Refined it, but supported it.*

RealClimate: A New Take on an Old Millennium

The subject of reconstructions of temperature variations of the past millennium has been discussed many times before on this site (see e.g. here, here, here, and here). Despite the apparent controversy, the basic conclusionthat the global and hemispheric-scale warmth of the past few decades appears anomalous in a very long-term contexthas stood up remarkably well in many independent studies (see Figure 1). - See more at: RealClimate: A New Take on an Old Millennium


----------



## asterism (Mar 9, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.
> ...



I looked for the data and haven't been able to find it.  Roger Pielke, Jr. (an actual Climatologist) was told this:



> We are not in a position to supply data for a particular country not covered by the example agreements referred to earlier, as we have never had sufficient resources to keep track of the exact source of each individual monthly value. Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.



Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: We Lost the Original Data


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 9, 2014)

asterism said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think those thousands of climate scientists haven't looked at all of that and hundred other things?  Yet the number of scientists convinced as to the validity of AGW has done nothing but grow over time.  I'd say the problem is far, far more likely to be your judgement than that thousands of professional scientists and educators have all chosen to lie to the public and to each other; that they have all communicated their falsehoods to each other in advance - in detail sufficient to make certain their temperature records, their model outputs, their paleoclimatic reconstructions all correlate so that no unbearable conflicts arise.
> ...



I do believe that you have never looked at the foundations of the science involved in global warming. Here is where you can do that;

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## asterism (Mar 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



That's great that a reconstruction using the same altered data was done.

Now show me one that used the raw data.


----------



## asterism (Mar 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Find me the raw temperature data for 1850-1970.


----------



## westwall (Mar 9, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.











It's "YOU'RE" just to be correct.  How do you expect anyone to take your proclamations of superiority seriously when you can't even get basic English correct?


----------



## gnarlylove (Mar 9, 2014)

My Lord! That undermines my whole intelligence. I'll de-register to save us all a favor from my incredibly inept editing.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 9, 2014)

SunEdison takes step toward solar plant in Saudi Arabia : Business


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 9, 2014)

Solar power to shine in Middle East - arabiangazette.com


----------



## elektra (Mar 10, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> SunEdison takes step toward solar plant in Saudi Arabia : Business





Dot Com said:


> Solar power to shine in Middle East - arabiangazette.com



The Saudis are a completely backwards society, they actually buy and sell 8 year old girls into slavery. Woman are not allowed to drive, woman are not allowed to be outside without a husband or brother, woman are not allowed to leave their husbands as in they are owned property with no say as to if she wants to remain in an arranged marriage. Woman are slaves in Saudi Arabia. 

I would say the Saudis policy on Solar Power is equally ignorant.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.
> ...



Maybe because that's the way science works??? You dolt.. 

And Gnarly is being hysterical about 

"Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  "

MOST skeptics have ZERO problem with the basics of CO2 and temperature rise.. The nutz of the brawl is over FUTURE projections. Projections that use Magic Multipliers that are CLEARLY NOT agreed upon by the Climate Science community.. Without the SCARY END of the Magic Multipliers that are bandied loosely about ---- There would BE NO THREAT to our future... 

ACTUAL OBSERVATION does not support the whackier side of the Magic Multipliers. And recently -- they are consistently being revised DOWNWARD and Clim. Sci. are no longer playing weather forecasting psychics like they were a decade ago.. 

But don't let the details keep you dolts from speculating about what the temperature in 2043 will be.. There IS NO consensus on that... You just IMAGINE that there is...


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2014)

At least 4 threads on the Giant Death Ray at Ivanpah in the forum -- And Dotty just discovers it.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 10, 2014)

Green energy is blooming in Europe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 10, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)
> ...



*and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them*

We have these subsidies in the US?
I wonder if anyone could list them?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If that was supposed to somehow refute Gnarly's argument, you've managed to speak clearly out your ass.
> 
> Long time no see Todd.  Where've you been?  Mom got you tied up with the chores?



Maybe you could list those "subsidies"?


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 10, 2014)

I said nothing about subsidies.  You did.  You list 'em.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 10, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I said nothing about subsidies.  You did.  You list 'em.



I understand your reluctance to help gnarly.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 10, 2014)

Gnarly needs not one lick of help dealing with you.  My guinea pig could deal with you.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 10, 2014)

elektra said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > SunEdison takes step toward solar plant in Saudi Arabia : Business
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Green energy is blooming in Europe.





laugh......my......balls.........off


And for the meatheads who are sitting home really thinking that the Chinese are going to scrap fossil fuels and go green >>>


Chinese government cafeterias go non-GMO; public schoolchildren still being fed poisons


To you I say, when was the plate put into your head????!!!!


----------



## westwall (Mar 10, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Solar power to shine in Middle East - arabiangazette.com









Even the Chinese can't get solar to pay for itself.



*Chaori to Sell Solar Farms to Repay Bondholders After Default *



Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co., the first Chinese company to default on corporate bonds onshore, plans to sell assets outside the country to raise cash and repay noteholders. 

The manufacturer will seek buyers for solar farms in Greece, Bulgaria, Italy and the U.S., Vice President Liu Tielong said by phone today. Chinese banks that had previously agreed to provide 800 million yuan ($130.3 million ) in loans if the company faced a temporary cash squeeze have no willingness to lend, he said. 

Potential buyers arent determined yet, Liu said. The solar plants are worth more than 1 billion yuan and are more than enough to cover the bond interest. 

The solar-cell maker paid only 4 million yuan of a 89.8 million yuan coupon payment due on March 7 on its 2017 bonds, according to Liu. The failure signals the government may back off its practice of bailing out companies after promising markets a decisive role in the allocation of resources. 

China Securities Co., which managed the Chaori note sale in 2012, plans to send a notice to bondholders today or tomorrow about convening a meeting, Beijing-based spokeswoman Zhang Jing said by phone today. The meeting date hasnt been decided and it isnt clear if most investors are individuals, she said. 


Photographer: Brent Lewin/Bloomberg 


The Shanghai Chaori Solar Energy Science & Technology Co. website is displayed on an... Read More 

According to Chaoris bond prospectus, Guangfa Bank Co.s Shanghai branch and China Citic Bank Corp. (998)s Suzhou branch agreed to extend 800 million yuan in loans to the manufacturer if it faced a temporary cash squeeze. Chaori is still talking to lenders for support, Liu said today. 


Chaori to Sell Solar Farms to Repay Bondholders After Default - Bloomberg


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2014)

Moderation Issue:

We have offsetting penalties --- personal fouls
References to moms.. Put 8 minutes of life back on this 
thread.. Treading close to the rules... 

flacaltenn


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 10, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Green energy is blooming in Europe.



PLEASE tell me that is photoshopped.. Would break my heart to see that much good silicon go to waste.. Could have made ObamaPhones for all the little orphans in Missouri with that stuff.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 10, 2014)

& there you go w/ the cheap political hack points  44 didn't start that program.

GOP debunked: 'Obama phone' does not exist, program started in 2008 under Bush


> As it happens the "Obama phone" actually was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2008. The program is called "SafeLink Wireless." An article from August 2008 confirms this.
> 
> How could it be an "Obama phone" when, at that time, the president had barely won the nomination two months prior?
> 
> Once again the GOP has reacted without having the facts, and once again they are holding an empty sack.



back to topic...


----------



## elektra (Mar 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Actually, I make the observation that the Kings and Princes of Saudi Arabia still practice slavery. They sell and buy woman. 

Then I make the observation that they are building Solar Plants, which require huge amounts of water, a constant source of outside electricity, as well as they produce about 5% of their Rated Capacity.

Then I compare that to California's Green Energy Experiment, which is resulting in rolling blackouts in a time of year when we have never ever had blackouts before. 

Which leads to the fact that the Saudi Arabians are a under-educated backwards people who rely on foreigners to develop the resources and to do the work. 

A society that is not in revolt over the open buying and selling of 9 year old daughters into sexual slavery is a ignorant, backwards, prehistoric, people at best. 

Solar Power in Saudi Arabia, just another indication of the backwardness in Saudi Arabia


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2014)

elektra said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



So Saudi Arabia is backward. So how does that justify your lies concerning solar power? And solar does not require water at all, except for an occasional cleaning. However, nuclear and coal and gas fired plants all require water. Lots of it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Green energy is blooming in Europe.
> ...



Statistics | EWEA

February 2014
There are now 117.3 GW of installed wind energy capacity in the EU: 110.7 GW onshore and 6.6 GW offshore. 11,159 MW of wind power capacity (worth between 13 bn and 18 bn) was installed in the EU-28 during 2013, a decrease of 8% compared to 2012 installations.

The EU power sector continues its move away from fuel oil and coal with each technology continuing to decommission more than it installs.

The wind power capacity installed by the end of 2013 would, in a normal wind year, produce 257 TWh of electricity, enough to cover 8% of the EU's electricity consumption - up from 7% the year before.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/b...e-as-environmental-benefits-pay-off.html?_r=0

Compared with electricity from coal, PV electricity over its lifetime uses 86 to 89 percent less water, occupies or transforms over 80 percent less land, presents approximately 95 percent lower toxicity to humans, contributes 92 to 97 percent less to acid rain, and 97 to 98 percent less to marine eutrophication, she said. Eutrophication is the discharge of excess nutrients that causes algal blooms.

Toward the end of last year, installed global photovoltaic generating capacity passed the milestone of 100 gigawatts  enough to meet the energy needs of 30 million households and save more than 53 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, according to a recent report by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association, E.P.I.A., a solar power industry lobby group.

Right now, today, the world has installed 130 gigawatts of PV, up from 1.4 gigawatts in 2000, Wolfgang Palz, a former manager of the European Commissions development program for renewable energies, told a conference organized by Frances National Center for Scientific Research, CNRS, in Paris last month.

Europe alone now has 80 gigawatts of installed photovoltaic capacity, of which 35 gigawatts is in Germany, the European Union leader, providing about 7 percent of the countrys electricity, he said.


----------



## asterism (Mar 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...





> The Nevada Solar One parabolic trough plant consumes 850 gallons of water per MWh on a 360-acre site near Las Vegas, or about 300,000 gallons per acre per year. In comparison, agriculture in Nevada requires almost 1.2 million gallons of water per acre per year  nearly four times the consumption of the solar power plant.



Water Use Management | SEIA

108 million gallons of water for that plant is quite significant.

When you have to lie to make your point you've lost.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 11, 2014)

asterism said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



You are the liar here. The picture is photovoltaics. No water required other than an occasional cleaning.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Don't know what any of this has to do with pic or my post.. Perhaps you think that BUYING this junk and consuming it with weeds is the IMPORTANT part.. 

But you're still using LYING statistics to prop up your BELIEFS.. ALL of that crap is based on GENERATING CAPACITY... The PEAK RATINGS of the generators both wind and solar.
Wind is at BEST averaging 30% of Peak and solar does AT BEST 40% of Peak.. 

So you can take the "30 million households" crap and shove it up your calculator and find that SOMETIMES --- that installed solar figure generates MAYBE enough for 12 Million households.. And correct the rest of the "marketing hype" that you constantly spew out to bolster your sagging confidence in this misguided advertising..


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 11, 2014)

^ link?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 11, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



He wasn't talking any picture on this site GoldiRocks.. He referred to a parabolic trough Solar THERMAL plant.. Which recycles water, but still uses quite a bit.. MOST don't heat water DIRECTLY since the fluids that go out to the mirror field are heavy heavy oils and other compositions..


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 11, 2014)

deniers on the warpath 

 Lots of negativity. Too bad they can't put all that "energy" to better use.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 11, 2014)

I think it is a good idea to take advantage of the energy from our sun. ;0


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 11, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> ^ link?



Let's do this this way... Have you ever seen an ACTUAL performance chart of daily production at a wind or solar farm? I know you haven't --- because you'd never ask for a link if you had.

Answer the question --- and I'll give you all the information you desire.

The numbers I supplied ARE GENEROUS -- because they refer to NEW equipment. For both solar and wind those production ratio numbers get MUCH WORSE over age.. Thus -- the pic of the abandoned weeded solar farm in Germany...


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Green energy is blooming in Europe.



a three year old pic? Nice cheap political point  Interestingly, that pic was taken around the time of Fukushima. Wonder what it looks like now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 11, 2014)

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > This plant will never repay its "carbon debt" (what a farcical concept)
> ...



*and that's without correcting for how much goes into subsidies of fossil fuels, especially our subsidies on consumption of them*

We have these subsidies in the US?
I wonder if anyone could list them? 

*Our consumption subsidies were over 200 billion last year alone. (See subsidies on wikipedia)*

You saw $200 billion in subsidies on Wikipedia? Be more specific.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 11, 2014)

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Allocation of subsidies in the United States*

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[8] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950&#8211;2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefitted most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefitted heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefitted from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefitted from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[9] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002&#8211;08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

In the United States, the federal government has paid US$74billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26billion. It has been suggested that a subsidy shift would help to level the playing field and support growing energy sectors, namely solar power, wind power, and biofuels.[10] However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[11] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).
The most important subsidies to the nuclear industry have not involved cash payments. Rather, they have shifted construction costs and operating risks from investors to taxpayers and ratepayers, burdening them with an array of risks including cost overruns, defaults to accidents, and nuclear waste management. This approach has remained remarkably consistent throughout the nuclear industry&#8217;s history, and distorts market choices that would otherwise favor less risky energy investments.[12]
Many energy analysts, such as Clint Wilder, Ron Pernick and Lester Brown, have suggested that energy subsidies need to be shifted away from mature and established industries and towards high growth clean energy. They also suggest that such subsidies need to be reliable, long-term and consistent, to avoid the periodic difficulties that the wind industry has had in the United States.[10][13]
A 2012 study authored by researchers at the Breakthrough Institute, Brookings Institution, and World Resources Institute[14] estimated that between 2009 and 2014 the federal government will spend $150 billion on clean energy through a combination of direct spending and tax expenditures. Renewable electricity (mainly wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal energy) will account for the largest share of this expenditure, 32.1%, while spending on liquid biofuels will account for the next largest share, 16.1%. Spending on multiple and other forms of clean energy, including energy efficiency, electric vehicles and advanced batteries, high-speed rail, grid and transportation electrification, nuclear, and advanced fossil fuel technologies, will account for the remaining share, 51.8%. Moreover, the report finds that absent federal action, spending on clean energy will decline by 75%, from $44.3 billion in 2009 to $11.0 billion in 2014.
According to the OECD, subsidies supporting fossil fuels, particularly coal and oil, represent greater threats to the environment than subsidies to renewable energy. Subsidies to nuclear power contribute to unique environmental and safety issues, related mostly to the risk of high-level environmental damage, although nuclear power contributes positively to the environment in the areas of air pollution and climate change. Subsidies to renewable energy are generally considered more environmentally beneficial, although the full range of environmental effects should to be taken into account.[15]
A 2010 study by Global Subsidies Initiative compared global relative subsidies of different energy sources. Results show that fossil fuels receive 0.8 US cents per kWh of energy they produce (although it should be noted that the estimate of fossil fuel subsidies applies only to consumer subsidies and only within non-OECD countries), nuclear energy receives 1.7 cents / kWh, renewable energy (excluding hydroelectricity) receives 5.0 cents / kWh and biofuels receive 5.1 cents / kWh in subsidies.[16]
In 2011, IEA chief economist Faith Birol said the current $409 billion equivalent of fossil fuel subsidies are encouraging a wasteful use of energy, and that the cuts in subsidies is the biggest policy item that would help renewable energies get more market share and reduce CO2 emissions.[17]
In February 2011 and January 2012 the UK Energy Fair group, supported by other organisations and environmentalists, lodged formal complaints with the European Union's Directorate General for Competition, alleging that the Government was providing unlawful State aid in the form of subsidies for nuclear power industry, in breach of European Union competition law.[18][19]
One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. &#8220;Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,&#8221; said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least &#8364;0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as &#8364;2.36, depending on assumptions made".[20]


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 11, 2014)

If utilities and private citizens want to install solar. Why not?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 11, 2014)

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)  ---- *No different than any other multi-national.*

Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion) --- *MOSTLY green subsidies that are being sucked up here. *

Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion) --- *Not much different than allowances for R&D in ANY tech company.. AND a lot of it SPECIFICALLY is for surveying and EXPLORING on PUBLIC lands.. So the Govt can value leases.*..

So NOTHING HERE is truely specific to oil is it? Any subsidy based solely on production volume? No there aint. Just standard biz deductions and credits.

How about the OTHER side??


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 11, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Allocation of subsidies in the United States*
> 
> ...



*Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)*

Every business gets credit for taxes paid to foreign countries.
Just as individuals do. It's not a subsidy.

*Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)*

I agree, we should stop wasting money on ethanol and other "green" fuels.

*Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)*

Every business gets to write off their expenses. It's not a subsidy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 11, 2014)

Check that out man.. I think we're SOCKS !!!!!!!
I lost Toddster in the Dryer about a year ago....


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 11, 2014)

your source links failed to post-through flacaltenn


----------



## elektra (Mar 12, 2014)

All this about Subsidies in a thread that repeats a lie.

This is not the World's Largest Solar Plant. This is a Natural Gas Power Plant, period.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 12, 2014)

Ivanpah?

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, is a solar thermal power project in the California Mojave Desert, 40 miles (64 km) southwest of Las Vegas, with a planned gross capacity of 392 megawatts (MW).[4] It deploys 173,500 heliostats each with two mirrors focusing solar energy on boilers located on centralized solar power towers.[4] The project attracted some controversy because of its location on desert habitat considered by wildlife officials and environmentalists to be important for the threatened desert tortoise.[5] Unit 1 of the project was connected to the grid in September 2013 in an initial sync testing.[6] The facility formally opened on February 13, 2014,[1] and the three units should be fully operational before the end of 2014[7]

Or are you talking about something else altogether?


----------



## elektra (Mar 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Ivanpah?
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



No, same thing, I just do not use Wikipedia because Wikipedia is political propaganda in many cases. You just ran across an example of this partisan political bias. 

I will google search, "Ivanpah Natural Gas Boilers"

the very first google search result is:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ivanpah+Natural+Gas+Boilers&oq=Ivanpah+Natural+Gas+Boilers&aqs=chrome..69i57.1155j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8



> Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System - 07-AFC-05
> California Energy Commission &#8250; sitingcases*
> California Energy Commission
> The three plants are collectively referred to as the Ivanpah Solar Electric ... Each plant also includes a partial-load natural gas-fired steam boiler, which would be  ..



Now watch this, I will google search, "Ivanpah Solar natural gas diesel fuel pump".

https://www.google.com/search?q=Ivanpah+Solar+natural+gas+diesel+fuel+pump&oq=Ivanpah+Solar+natural+gas+diesel+fuel+pump&aqs=chrome..69i57.17496j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Ivanpah+Solar+natural+gas+diesel+pump



> Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System - 07-AFC-05
> California Energy Commission &#8250; sitingcases*
> California Energy Commission
> Each plant also includes a partial-load natural gas-fired steam boiler, which ... heaters, a deaerator, an emergency diesel generator, and a diesel fire pump.
> You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 3/12/1



Now this next google search is very amusing, "natural gas prime movers compressor stations"

https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+gas+prime+movers+pumps&oq=natural+gas+prime+movers+pumps&aqs=chrome..69i57.7703j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=natural+gas+prime+movers+compressor+stations



> Compressor Stations
> The compressor station, also called a pumping station, is the "engine" that powers an interstate natural gas pipeline.  As the name implies, the compressor station compresses the natural gas (pumping up its pressure) thereby providing energy to move the gas through the pipeline.
> 
> Pipeline companies install compressor stations along a pipeline route, typically every 40 to 100 miles.  The size of the station and the number of compressors (pumps) varies, based on the diameter of the pipe and the volume of gas to be moved.  Nevertheless, the basic components of a station are similar.
> ...








In Concluding my post, I will point out that the World's Largest with the least electrical power output, most Expensive Renewable Green Energy Electrical Generating Station *Can not operate without Fossil fuel*

An advance in technology? Or a Natural Gas Powered Boiler disguised as a Renewable Energy Power Plant with Diesel powered back-up pumps to keep Ivanpah Solar fueled with Fossil Fuel.

This plant is nothing more than a political con to trick the American people into believing Solar Power is now able to supply electricity. Ivanpah Solar is not capable of providing the energy it needs simply to power up. 

Now I could get into what type of energy will be used to pump the water this Solar Plant uses, and as I mention the water use, is California not in its worst Drought on record? Agriculture and Farming do not have the water they need to grow the food we need to live yet Californian's uses Fossil Fuel to pump scarce water in the desert, during a drought to the World's largest "Solar" plant, that is failing at preventing Rolling Brown-outs across California. 

California shut down two nuclear reactors which while operating prevented Brown-outs during the high energy usage months of Winter, how come the World's Largest Most Expensive Solar Power Plant did not offset the loss of Electricity when SONGS got shut down? The two Combustion Engineering Nuclear Power Plants were not the largest in the world, so how come a 3 billion dollar Solar Plant can not provide a fraction of the energy to replace the power from even one of the CE Nuclear Power Plants shutdown politically?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 12, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> your source links failed to post-through flacaltenn



You never answered my question Dottie.. I ain't got time to FULLY educate you.
I wanted to know what YOU thought the ACTUAL production efficiency of a wind or solar is before I wasted an hour debating with you... 

Here's a little hint...  

MiddleGrunden is one of the best-sited off-shore wind farms in the world.. This is a daily production chart from their records.. 






1) *Can you ESTIMATE for me what the ACTUAL production average for that period is???  *

Now the 10 turbines are 2MW RATED each for a total of 20MWatts.. (you may have to divide by 24hr/day to get from MW-hrs to MW)

2) *Have you ever seen a production chart for what wind ACTUALLY PRODUCES versus what it's RATED for?
*
You can follow the DAILY, MONTHLY production in real times at:

http://www.middelgrund.com/

May need an older browser to do that.. 

*3) What was production at MiddelGrunden YESTERDAY and a week ago YESTERDAY?
*


*4) Are you aware the production efficiencies of BOTH wind and solar are derated with aging?*


The numbers I gave were GENEROUS.. Answer the questions and we can continue.. 
*I don't do rope-a-dope..*.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Ivanpah?
> 
> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Electra is totally correct.. Ivanpah was designed as a dual system so that it could stand alone on the grid.. It is a HYBRID generator with AMPLE Nat Gas backup...

<<EDITED TO ADD>>  The important point here is that this Hybrid is FUNDAMENTALLY a nat gas when you strip the covers off. And that demonstrates the LARGER concept that solar is only a 6 hr/day PEAKER technology and is not a PRIMARY alternative to anything. It's just more evident in this particular design, but any wind or solar rides on the back of RELIABLE, primary power sources..


----------



## elektra (Mar 12, 2014)

Natural Gas is needed to operate and "start-up" the Ivanpah "Solar" plant. The reporting that the Natural Gas component is for Back-up is incorrect. Solar Power is dirty power, as is Wind Power, the higher the capacity to produce electricity results in extreme power fluctuation, extreme fluctuations inherent in the design will destroy all the substations and electrical equipment on the grid. In order to mediate this design problem in all Solar Power Plants, the solution was to use a Natural Gas Boiler as the core/primary power source. Natural Gas will bring the massive amount of water required up to operating temperature, something the Solar component of the plant can not do.  Natural Gas will provide clean uninterrupted power while the Solar Components power Fluctuates. 

This is normal operation, not Back-up power. 

The Dirty Secret of Renewable Energy is in order to fulfill the energy contracts agreed upon  all Solar and Wind power plants must have a secondary source of Fossil Fuel Generated power equal to or greater than 100% of the power which is guaranteed in contracts. 

Green/Renewable Energy advocates love to point out how Oil Companies are invested in Solar and Wind, while being completely ignorant to the fact that the Oil Companies supply energy not only to the Solar and Wind components, but they get to supply power to the secondary/"back-up" Fossil Fuel Plants. 

win, win, win. Sell twice the product while providing half the energy. 

and yes, Ivanpah Solar will operate predominantly on Natural Gas in California's Six month rainy season.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 12, 2014)

Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.

You know, you forgot to include the gasoline its employees burn getting to work and back.  

ps:  Looked up the first part. Generating 392 MW hrs with 58% efficiency will require 62,390 cubic meters of natural gas.  For an 8,000 hour year that would be just shy of 50 million cubic meters of gas.

I have been unable to find out how much gas Ivanpah uses.  Perhaps you can find it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.
> 
> You know, you forgot to include the gasoline its employees burn getting to work and back.
> 
> ps:  Looked up the first part. Generating 392 MW hrs with 58% efficiency will require 62,390 cubic meters of natural gas.  For an 8,000 hour year that would be just shy of 50 million cubic meters of gas.




1) The only reason they are burning gas to get to the middle of nowhere desert is the SOLAR part of the plant.. The Nat Gas facility could be anywhere.

2) Better check your math.. 392MW-hr doesn't need to be multiplied by anything.. 

The bottom line is the solar side generates at peak, WITH nat gas assist to start-up, only about 6 hrs a day.  So MAYBE --- it saves 25% of the nat gas bill..  On most days...


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 12, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.
> ...



An hour is not a year.  If you believe you can generate 392 megawatts for a year with 62,000 cubic metes of gas, I've got a bridge you really ought to buy.  And your numbers are grossly overestimated.  The plant likely doesn't need gas for more than an hour a day for start up and it's not doing 392 MWs while starting up.

From Elektra's first article:

"Each plant also includes a partial-load natural gas-fired steam boiler, which would be used for thermal input to the turbine during the morning start-up cycle to assist the plant in coming up to operating temperature more quickly. The boiler would also be operated during transient cloudy conditions [location has full sun >82% of the year], in order to maintain the turbine on-line and ready to resume production from solar thermal input, after the clouds pass. After the clouds pass and solar thermal input resumes, the turbine would be returned to full solar production."

That is NOT carrying the full load with gas 25% of the time.

I wanted to add a comment to something you said to me elsewhere.  When I made a remark about powering CFL and LED lights with power from a solar plant, you noted that we use our lights at night when solar is not available.  I just wanted to make certain that everyone is aware that we humans use vastly more energy during the day than the night.  That solar power is only available in daytime is NOT a significant drawback.  Daytime is when we need the power.  There are methods for retaining sufficient thermal energy to cover overnight use; primarily glauber salts which have a convenient phase change temperature. 

It appears that the dropping cost of photovoltaics has gone well below the cost per kWh of solar thermal plants like Ivanpah.  The new  thrust will be for distributed generation with PV on America's rooftops.  Solar thermal still has some viability on locations with lots of land, sunshine and a shortage of natural gas, but it looks as if Ivanpah may be the last large US facility.  China is planning a plant five times as big, but who knows if it'll actually save money.

And there's another point.  Natural gas plants are far less to build than solar thermal, but they still produce infinitely more carbon dioxide.  That has a significant value.... At least to those who haven't joined the Flat Earth Luddites Alliance.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 12, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.
> ...



An hour is not a year.  If you believe you can generate 392 megawatts for a year with 62,000 cubic metes of gas (that'd be an _unpressurized_ tank 40 feet on a side), I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you really ought to buy.  And your numbers are grossly overestimated.  The plant likely doesn't need gas for more than an hour a day for start up and it's not doing 392 MWs while starting up.

From Elektra's first article:

"Each plant also includes a partial-load natural gas-fired steam boiler, which would be used for thermal input to the turbine during the morning start-up cycle to assist the plant in coming up to operating temperature more quickly. The boiler would also be operated during transient cloudy conditions, in order to maintain the turbine on-line and ready to resume production from solar thermal input, after the clouds pass. After the clouds pass and solar thermal input resumes, the turbine would be returned to full solar production."

That is NOT carrying the full load with gas 25% of the time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Your not even close to understanding the 25% estimate of gas savings because of the solar side..  IF demand was level day and night, solar is available as a PEAKER for 6 hours a day. Maybe 300 days a year, the plant would use 6/24 = 0.25 Less nat gas to satisfy that level demand..  Now your statement that we use VASTLY LESS  energy at night is overcharged with belief..  Cal ISO figures that I had to follow to keep my silicon valley lab safe frombrownouts,  say that midsummer time use at 10pm is about 80% of the daytime peak. Early evening more like 90%. No solar available at either time,,, when the lights are on.

Texas ERCOT graphs ive posted before confirm these estimates.  So this is largely why virtuallyno one is proposing increasing solar BEYOND  20% of grid generation.  You will see that number in numerous public policy plans..  Like in CALI where they had a 20% by 2020 goal,      thats where they GOT the 20%..  From the midday summer ""excess usage.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 12, 2014)

I note you didn't revisit 392 MWhours.  You don't really like to admit your errors, do you.

Reread the text from Elektra's article.  They have NO plans to run those gas plants overnight.  They are for morning  start up and passing clouds.  Only.  Your numbers are crap.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I note you didn't revisit 392 MWhours.  You don't really like to admit your errors, do you.
> 
> Reread the text from Elektra's article.  They have NO plans to run those gas plants overnight.  They are for morning  start up and passing clouds.  Only.  Your numbers are crap.



I noticed that too. He just pushes forward when caught in a lie  MAN UP & ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES flacaltenn!!!


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 12, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I note you didn't revisit 392 MWhours.  You don't really like to admit your errors, do you.
> 
> Reread the text from Elektra's article.  They have NO plans to run those gas plants overnight.  They are for morning  start up and passing clouds.  Only.  Your numbers are crap.



1) I have NO IDEA where you got the 392 number from or what you intended to prove with it.

2) It appears that you are correct and the nat gas boilers are only partial load and NOT used at night.. So we are back to a 6 hour a day PEAKER source with little help to the grid for the other 18 hours in the day.. That's a shame really. But it already cost enough.. Documented at::::

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System - 07-AFC-05

As far as bragging about how much nat gas this MULTIBILLION dollar death ray produces, *the 390MW not in MW-Hrs as you stated. And that is PEAK generation.. The Capacity factor is AT BEST 30% of that.. And that is the averaged PRODUCED power. So you are paying for 3 times the boiler and turbines than you would need for a gas plant and you are only NEAR PEAK for 6 or 8 hours a day.*. 



> Is Ivanpah the World?s Most Efficient Solar Plant? : Greentech Media
> 
> When the solar-thermal plant is built on the edge of the Mojave National Preserve (construction is expected to start this year), it will operate at 18 percent efficiency and earn a capacity factor of 30 percent.
> 
> This performance should make the 392-MW facility more efficient than plants with crystalline-silicon panels, thin-film cells or rival thermal technologies using parabolic mirrors, according to analysts.





> BrightSource responds that plant efficiency is only one measure of performance, and not necessarily the best. Capacity factor, a calculation of a farm&#8217;s ability to deliver full power over time, may be more important, the company says. Ivanpah&#8217;s capacity factor (including the use of natural gas) should be 30 percent, Taylor claims. A wind farm in an ideal location (think Tehachapi) can have a factor of 40 percent. Photovoltaic plants generally are lower. A Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center study estimates a PV plant in Arizona should be closer to 20 percent.



So that 390MW generator you paid for is really a 130MW generator.. Best estimates..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 13, 2014)

BTW:  Here's that correlation between solar tower generation and the DEMAND curve that AGAIN shows 
about 80% of peak load at 10PM...


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.
> ...








They do have problems with basic math....don't they?


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.
> 
> You know, you forgot to include the gasoline its employees burn getting to work and back.
> 
> ...





> You know, you forgot to include the gasoline its employees burn getting to work and back



NO, I did not forget, I made the point that the press releases fail to mention that Ivanpah can not operate without Natural Gas and Diesel Fuel.



> why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts



First, mwh is the unit that power is rated, that is the mega watts per hour.
Second, 392 mwh is the "Nameplate Capacity", or "Installed Capacity". Or simply gross.
Net Capacity of Ivanpah is "designed" 377 mwh, as designed Ivanpah will never surpass the 377 mwh. The difference between gross and net is the amount of power required to run the components at the Solar Power Plant. This figure excludes the Prime Pumpers that pump the natural gas and this figure excludes the water usage needed to clean the 350,000 mirrors after the frequent desert dust storms. Got to wonder how big a crew they will use to wash the 350,000 mirrors nightly.



> Generating 392 MW hrs with 58% efficiency will require 62,390 cubic meters of natural gas



58% efficiency? Efficiency is the incorrect term, the term you need is "Capacity Factor". Capacity Factor applies to all Power Plants that generate electricity. 

I am not sure where you got 58%, Ivanpah's Capacity factor is a mere 31.7%, , the actual Capacity factor may be considerable lower. The estimates in press release are not accurate.

How much Natural Gas will a NGPS (natural gas power station) compared to the Ivanpah? Good question, the press releases stated Ivanpah was operational since Dec. 31st of 2013 yet the ISO data lists zero for CSPs. Meaning, Ivanpah is not working.

I been scouring the web for the information, its pretty much not there, did a lot of google searches, nothing on the non operation of Ivanpah yet the Press Releases still make the erroneous claim that Ivanpah is operational.

Until Ivanpah is operational its impossible to know how much power will be produced or if the design of Ivanpah will work. 

So why not do our Natural gas comparison to Ivanpah after Ivanpah proves its design is capable of working.

Well doing Google searches I figured out why Google can not find the answer to why Ivanpah is in a "forced outage".  Seems the Liberal/Democrats at Google need to protect Googles stock price, I think the price will drop once the knowledge that Ivanpah is looking like Green Energy's Albatross. 

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/google-invests-168-million-in-brightsource-ivanpah-plant/ 



> Google Invests $168 Million in BrightSources Ivanpah Plant
> 
> Google Invests $168 Million in BrightSources Ivanpah Plant
> When will enough be enough for BrightSource?
> ...


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 13, 2014)

Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> I note you didn't revisit 392 MWhours.  You don't really like to admit your errors, do you.
> 
> Reread the text from Elektra's article.  They have NO plans to run those gas plants overnight.  They are for morning  start up and passing clouds.  Only.  Your numbers are crap.





Dot Com said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I note you didn't revisit 392 MWhours.  You don't really like to admit your errors, do you.
> ...





westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Lets just talk Basics to keep it simple for all of you, okay. 

The unit of measurment is not mw not MW-hr, MW-hrs, or MWatts, so you have the basics wrong. It is mwh. mega watts per hour.

Yes lets check our math, but before that lest not use Name Plate Capacity, No power plant produces Name Plate Capacity. 

392 mwh is the name plate or gross. You have to use net, period.
377 mwh is the net capacity of Ivanpah. 

You mention 58% efficiency, my previous post correct the two error you made. Again, its Capacity Factor and Ivanpah's Capacity Factor is 31.7%

So apply the basic math, go ahead, what is 31.7% of 377 mwh, its 109.5 mwh. 

All this thread you have been posting a figure that is very misleading, literally a lie.

Ivanpah was declared operational on the 31st of December 2013, the ISO data for CSP's reported by the Grid operators in Jan. of 2012 was negligible, or close to zero. Yet all the press reports continued to report Ivanpah as an operational Solar Plant producing 392 mwh.

Yet, in light of the facts, that Ivanpah is non-operational, and may never be operational, the U.S. Energy Secretary dedicates the opening on Feb. 13, declares Ivanpah as a "Shining Example", all well Google, Pres. Obama, the US Energy Secretary know, Ivanpah is failing. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz even repeated the lie that Ivanpah is producing 392 mwh knowing at best it can only produce 105 mwh on a good day, as well as knowing since being declared operational, Ivanpah was not.

SolarIndustryMag.com: Ivanpah Dedicated With All Three CSP Units Now Online



> U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz dedicated the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System in a ceremony on Feb. 13.
> 
> "The Ivanpah project is a shining example of how America is becoming a world leader in solar energy," Moniz says, in a statement. 


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.



Exactly! All that matters. 

Who cares is the power is much, much more expensive?
Who cares if it is undependable?
As long as it doesn't emit that evil CO2.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2014)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.
> ...








Yep, form over substance is what these guys specialize in.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 13, 2014)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



On the other hand Ivanpah may pose a religious problem, like maintaining the assertion that 2.4 watts/m^2 "radiative forcing" has raised the global temperature by 0.8 deg C.
If Ivanpah can suck out 392 MW with 2.5 km^2 of mirrors ... (*that`s 66 times the rate* of the "AGW CO2 radiative forcing"  )... perhaps prophet Abraham the 3rd could  tell us how much colder it should be by now where all these mirrors are.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2014)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 13, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.



you might be wasting your time. deniers worship throwing up carbon into the atmosphere. Their philosophy of "I want it all now, future generations be damned" is inviolable.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.
> ...








Poor, poor dottie.  Whining because your religion is failing won't make it stop little one...


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.
> ...



Deniers? 

Ivanpah has 350,000 mirrors covering 17 square miles, how much carbon was released into the atmosphere producing 350,000 mirrors?

How many millions of tons of Materials, like silica, fossil fuel, did it take to make 350,000 mirrors? 



> I want it all now


 is exactly what you advocate and did building Ivanpah (which does not operate). Millions and millions of tons of raw resources used to build your dream which you want now. Not in the future when it may work, but now, when it does not work.



> future generations be damned


 Is exactly what you did to the future, 2.2 billion dollars they have to pay so Ivanpah can cover 17 square miles of land, killing birds, turtles, snakes, lizards, insects. You screwed the future.


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...





> If Ivanpah can suck out 392 MW with 2.5 km^2 of mirrors



I guess substance and facts and reading is not your strong point, Ivanpah is not operating, so the only bit of truth in your post is, "*if*".

Ivanpah may produce 392 mw, that is easy, producing 392 mwh is impossible. The difference is the "h" which mean hour. Since being connected to the grid last year, Ivanpah has been broke, they can not get the 17 square mile Albatross to work. 350,000 mirrors that must track the sun and focus the sun rays seemed easy on paper, but in reality, gthe 2.2 billion dollar experiment is failing.

Do not try and look it up with google though, you see google owns Ivanpah and has hidden the news articles, as well as Google and the other investors have kept their mouth shut about the problem. 

Further, 392 mwh gross is what the manufacturer says that Ivanpah could produce, in theory. In reality 377 mwh net is all Ivanpah is designed to produce, but.....

But then, there is a little thing called *capacity factor*

Ivanpah's Capacity Factor is 31.7% hence as designed. 

Ivanpah as built has a gross power output of 397 mwh,
Ivanpah thus will have a net power output of 377 mwh. 
Ivanpah's Capacity factor is 31.7%, output is 105 mwh.



> If Ivanpah can suck out 392 MW with 2.5 km^2 of mirrors



Ivanpah can not suck out 392 mwh, it may suck out 105 mwh, and it can not do it with mirrors, it uses natural gas.

Ivanpah does not work, so all we are discussing is your dream, your fantasy, what you were told to believe.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


>


So question since you posted this here, what caused those same conditions back in the 1800s? Just wondering, because if you actually did research you'd find out the polar vortex is normal in winter. It is cyclical Hmm, sorry big word.

Not sure why you wished to distort the kudos on this thread that you'd have gotten had you just left it alone.  

I'm happy for the desert to get some electric.  See we need it.  It just hasn't proven practical in the other areas of the NA markets.

Edit: BTW without future business, not sure how that company stays in business.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 13, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> in MURICA too deniers:
> 
> The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today
> 
> ...


So is it operating or not.  There seems to be some contention on this thread that this site is not up.  Problems have been encountered.  Have you posted that yet?


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > in MURICA too deniers:
> ...









I have flown over it three times since it became "operational".  It has not yet been operational when I flew over.  Nat Gas may have been as I have no way of knowing that....but the solar was definitely NOT.


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > in MURICA too deniers:
> ...



The site is not operating. As far as the problems at Ivanpah, the owners have been silent, 
Google is one of the owners, I imagine Google will not link to news stories about the problems.

Either way, this is the very last CSP of this type that will ever be built. It has proven itself to be a failure.

The cost is prohibitive, this one was built because Obama gave 1.6$ billion to the project.

Further, you must take public land, land that is suppose to be ours forever, and give it to the private corporations. not many Corporations have the cash to buy 17 square miles.

The cost to the environment is too great.

The amount of water is extreme, and that its in the desert, and california is in another drought season, which sometimes lasts as long as 7 years.

And with an unproven capacity factor of 31.7%, it will not provide a miniscule amount of electricity needed to simply pump water, which in California is 80% of our electrical usage (agriculture and industry use 90% of the water in California).


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

This is one of the victims of Ivanpah.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 13, 2014)

elektra said:


> Seems the Liberal/Democrats at Google need to protect Googles stock price,



If you'd lose the paranoid conspiracy babbling, you'd appear less insane.


----------



## westwall (Mar 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Seems the Liberal/Democrats at Google need to protect Googles stock price,
> ...








No one holds a candle to you and yours admiral....no one.


----------



## elektra (Mar 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Seems the Liberal/Democrats at Google need to protect Googles stock price,
> ...



Just throwing it out there, Google can afford to lose billions, but the loss to us is greater, 17 square miles of land destroyed, how do we get that back? 

But, Google is worth 268 billion dollars, how come they had to take 1.6 billion from the taxpayers, why does Google get my money to make more profit? 

Huge Ivanpah solar power plant, owned by Google and Oakland company, opens as industry booms - ContraCostaTimes.com



> Huge Ivanpah solar power plant, owned by Google and Oakland company, opens as industry booms


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 13, 2014)

Back around 10 years ago, there were any number of Wind Farms posting daily production reports. 
I've archived about 8 different ones. BUT TODAY -- you can barely find isolated examples of wind projects reporting their hourly, daily, or monthly output.. They have been PURGED.. 

I doubt that CSP projects will ever let the public monitor their production.. 
This is one reason why --- the news on Ivanpah can't be that great..


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 14, 2014)

It's that massive climate science conspiracy again.  OOOOooooh... they're EVIL, aren't they.  Satan worshipping commies bent on destroying this nation because they HATE TRUTH and FREEDOM and RICH PETROLEUM EXECUTIVES.


----------



## elektra (Mar 14, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> It's that massive climate science conspiracy again.  OOOOooooh... they're EVIL, aren't they.  Satan worshipping commies bent on destroying this nation because they HATE TRUTH and FREEDOM and RICH PETROLEUM EXECUTIVES.



So, this is Abraham's response to all those posts that repeatedly corrected the bullshit and lies Abraham posted

Abraham's posts were all shown to be either of a person who knew nothing of what he spoke or Abraham was simply a parrot, a shill, a stooge, and this is your response?

Of course you must ignore all those posts that expose you as a fraud.

Take a good look folks, as the truth about Green Energy is told and learned by the public, the Leftist/Liberal/Democrat will become more radicalized.

Abraham, thank you for validating all the facts about Solar Power's Failure I posted by not defending your statements.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 14, 2014)

elektra said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > It's that massive climate science conspiracy again.  OOOOooooh... they're EVIL, aren't they.  Satan worshipping commies bent on destroying this nation because they HATE TRUTH and FREEDOM and RICH PETROLEUM EXECUTIVES.
> ...



So... your idea of a successful debate - of one in which you've done well - is one in which your opponent doesn't show up.  Quite the test.  A real thorough demonstration of your profound knowledge.  What amazing confidence and proficiency you've displayed here.  Now I think I'll go have a look and see what the heck you're cackling about.


----------



## elektra (Mar 14, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Right, still aint addressing your lies, attack me but do not quote where I pointed out all your errors, all the things that you posted that were easily proven that you have no knowledge, you keep up the personal attack, like you have not read the two dozen posts where I corrected the misinformation you posted.

Yea, go back, like you have not even seen what I am talking about. Even though I had to repeat the same post in response to your insults and flames when you had nothing else. 

Yea, go take a good look as if I have not told you a dozen times that Ivanpah never became operation despite you stating it was and at that was producing 300% more power than designed while not even working.

Abraham, the victim, now go see what I am cackling about cause you don't know, pobre voce.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 14, 2014)

elektra said:


> So is it operating or not.  There seems to be some contention on this thread that this site is not up.  Problems have been encountered.  Have you posted that yet?
> 
> The site is not operating. As far as the problems at Ivanpah, the owners have been silent,
> Google is one of the owners, I imagine Google will not link to news stories about the problems.
> ...



You've got an amazing penchant for posting falsehoods.

&#8212;   All Three Units of 392 megawatt Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Now Delivering Solar Power to California&#8217;s Electric Grid &#8212;

World?s Largest Solar Thermal Power Project at Ivanpah Achieves Commercial Operation

Solar thermal has not failed.  The plant is doing precisely what it was built to do at precisely the predicted cost.  No more solar thermal plants will get built for the foreseeable future because the cost of photovoltaic and natural gas have fallen.  The dropping cost of PV has made the idea of distributed power generation far more feasible.  We're all going to start putting PV panels on our roofs.

The government did not give 1.6 billion for the construction of the plant.  They gave a loan guarantee on which they have not had to pay out one cent.  They DID give Bright Source a tax credit because the plant is not nuclear and does not emit GHGs.  This will total about $800 million over the next two years.  

The land used by Ivanpah - in fact the public land _available_ for use by wind and solar concerns (and these are rights of way vice leases since no mineral extraction is performed - the land could be restored to its original conditions simply by removing the installed equipment) - are less than 3% of the land available for lease for oil, coal, gas and mineral extraction.  http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40806.pdf

The amount of water used by Ivanpah is less than a nearby golf course uses to water two of its holes.  Water is NOT used to cool the working fluid.  The only water used at the plant is keeping the mirrors clean.

I don't like being called a liar missy.  Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.  I want to know specifically what statements of mine you believe were lies and the evidence that makes you think so.  And let me say up front that I don't call mistakes, lies; else I would have had more than a few additional comments for you along the way.

ps: if you don't like my absences, don't get involved with people who still work for a living.


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 14, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Back around 10 years ago, there were any number of Wind Farms posting daily production reports.
> I've archived about 8 different ones. BUT TODAY -- you can barely find isolated examples of wind projects reporting their hourly, daily, or monthly output.. They have been PURGED..
> 
> I doubt that CSP projects will ever let the public monitor their production..
> This is one reason why --- the news on Ivanpah can't be that great..



The truth would inflict a direct hit on the mining of the US Treasury underway to feather the next of the Green swindles going on in the country at this time. 

 It's too bad when the taxpayer is the person who is never consulted, tapped unmercifully for phony projects, then purged of his wages "for his own good."


----------



## whitehall (Mar 14, 2014)

It takes a staggering five square miles and three hundred thousand 7 ft mirrors to power one hundred forty thousand homes on it's best day? WTF?


----------



## asterism (Mar 14, 2014)

whitehall said:


> It takes a staggering five square miles and three hundred thousand 7 ft mirrors to power one hundred forty thousand homes on it's best day? WTF?



Wow, I hadn't thought of that.  So "sustainable" part-time power takes 10% of the land required to energize a typical community?  That's just very inefficient.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 14, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Back around 10 years ago, there were any number of Wind Farms posting daily production reports.
> ...



Let me be concise and succinct:  BULLSHIT


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 14, 2014)

asterism said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a staggering five square miles and three hundred thousand 7 ft mirrors to power one hundred forty thousand homes on it's best day? WTF?
> ...



Compared to what?  To provide as much energy as Ivanpah will in the next year would require 50 MILLION CUBIC METERS of natural gas which would have produced several TIMES that much volume of GHG emissions.

That's just very inefficient.


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 14, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Read it and weep, bootlicker: Green Graveyard of Taxpayer Ripoffs

You should speak only when spoken to and stay under the porch until you're ready to run with the big doggies, silly puppy.


----------



## asterism (Mar 14, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Compared to a Natural Gas plant that takes up about 300 acres and powers 150,000 homes.  



Abraham3 said:


> To provide as much energy as Ivanpah will in the next year would require 50 MILLION CUBIC METERS of natural gas which would have produced several TIMES that much volume of GHG emissions.



What's the land use to get that gas?



Abraham3 said:


> That's just very inefficient.


  Only if you think Carbon Dioxide can't be mitigated and that there is a finite ceiling instead of a factor for which humans can adjust.

See that's the other problem of the Climate Change policy argument, none of the solutions being proposed are workable and are proven.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So is it operating or not.  There seems to be some contention on this thread that this site is not up.  Problems have been encountered.  Have you posted that yet?
> ...



Oh.. So the owners put out a GLOWING press release that says it's OPEN.. And that's all you need to write that many words? Not even curious how it's PERFORMING? Or the production numbers? Or whether it WORKS according to design?? 

No way you're an engineer..


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Tell me again where you're getting that number?? You're not using the 392 MW PEAK production for IvanPah are you?  It does not power as many homes as they claim.. That's DECEPTIVE. It fits the green scam mold that Becki is talking about. Because the energy it ACTUALLY PRODUCES per year is 1/3 or less of the PEAK power output averaged over the year.  We may never SEE production numbers from Ivanpah or any existing windfarm ever again.. Because --- it's not great news if they are not PUBLISHING them..


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 15, 2014)

Does Ivanpah produce as much GHGs as a plant with equivalent capacity using any form of fossil fuel?

No?

End of debate.


----------



## whitehall (Mar 15, 2014)

Did they do an environmental impact survey of the delicate desert terrain? I doubt it. How many endangered species were killed or uprooted? Do they care about the flying creatures that probably get sizzled by the contraptions? The EPA wants to fine a middle class guy $75,000 per day for digging a pond on his 8 acres in Ca. but 5 square miles of craziness to furnish energy to a miniscule part of the grid seems fine as long as they call it "green"..


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 15, 2014)

I guarantee you environmental impact studies were done.  I also guarantee you that Ivanpah will have less impact on the environment and its inhabitants than an equivalent fossil fuel plant would have had.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2014)

freedombecki said:


> Let me be concise and succinct: BULLSHIT
> 
> Read it and weep, bootlicker: Green Graveyard of Taxpayer Ripoffs



Cherrypicking falllacy, as any non-cultist instantly recognized.

But then, given the facts and science contradict you, dishonest cherrypicking fallacies are all you will ever be capable of. Sucks to be you, in that your political cult commands you to act  stupid and just accept the mocking you get in return. Does the security-blanket feeling you get from your herd loyalty make up for all that humiliation?


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Let me be concise and succinct: BULLSHIT
> ...



Cute but how does this excuse failure?


----------



## mamooth (Mar 15, 2014)

I can't answer that for you. You'll have to find your own reasons to excuse your chronic failures.


----------



## elektra (Mar 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So is it operating or not.  There seems to be some contention on this thread that this site is not up.  Problems have been encountered.  Have you posted that yet?
> ...



You are either a complete idiot or a liar. You go to Brightsource, the company covering up the inoperation of Ivanpah? You post a press release? Which I already pointed out was false, in light of the dedication ceremony by Energy Secretary Moniz on the same exact day? On the 13th its dedicated and declared operational while Obamas man Moniz is there. 

Energy Secretary Moniz Dedicates World?s Largest Concentrating Solar Power Project | Department of Energy



> Energy Secretary Moniz Dedicates Worlds Largest Concentrating Solar Power Project
> 
> February 13, 2014 - 5:00am
> Share on emailShare on facebook
> ...



How do I know its not operational?

California ISO - Todays Outlook



> Current Renewables: 2374.08 MW
> Current Solar: 20.15 MW
> Current Wind: 705.54 MW



20 mwh of total Solar, not just CSP, this includes photovoltaic. 

Given Ivanpah is only capable of 105 mwh and this figure include all solar, what is going on?

Is Ivanpah Online? | CleanTechnica



> Digging Deeper
> How much power at this time? It is likely that only owner NRG, technology supplier Brightsource, construction contractor Bechtel, California ISO, and utilities buying the power know. Brightsource and NRG arent saying, and as they are holding a commissioning ceremony on February 13th, 2014, they are keeping silent in the interim






> To further complicate matters, January ISO data shows practically no CSP output during nearly all days in January 2014, meaning that neither SEGS nor Ivanpah were what we would call operational.



Abraham is looking at a Press Release by the owner of Ivanpah for power output?

Elektra is looking at data put out by the California Grid Operators. 

Which is more accurate, a press release from the owners (Google, Brightsource, NRG) the day the President sends the Energy Secretary to Ivanpah to dedicate it, or the Data from the grid operators? 

Of course, I already posted this, in this thread, which Abraham ignores for three days, and then Abraham comes back and says I am a liar and posts a press release like this information is not in this thread already.

Is Ivanpah Online? | CleanTechnica



> Operational or Non-operational?
> California ISO does provide more clues to this mystery. The organization keeps a list of curtailed and non-operational power plants, and Ivanpahs three units have been on this list for months. During four of the first five days of February, at least one unit was listed as fully curtailed or non-operational, and the other two partially curtailed.
> 
> The position of the three units have switched on this list. On February 2nd, it was unit 2 that was fully off-line, with the other two partially restricted; and on February 3rd, 4th, and 5th, unit 3 was fully off-line. On February 1st, all three units are listed as only partially curtailed or non-operational.
> ...


----------



## elektra (Mar 15, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Lovely Googlizing.  Now why don't you Google how much natural gas would be required in a purely natural gas-fired power plant to produce Ivanpah's planned 392 MWatts and then look up how much natural gas Ivanpah uses to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> It's that massive climate science conspiracy again.  OOOOooooh... they're EVIL, aren't they.  Satan worshipping commies bent on destroying this nation because they HATE TRUTH and FREEDOM and RICH PETROLEUM EXECUTIVES.





Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > So is it operating or not.  There seems to be some contention on this thread that this site is not up.  Problems have been encountered.  Have you posted that yet?
> ...



You do not like being called a liar? 

So be a man then, you drew first blood, you called my knowledge *Googlizing*

You can state whatever you please to me, in any manner, condescending, and when I respond back in kind, you cry you do not like to be called a liar?

Abraham made fun, was condescending, rather rude and insulting, and now Abraham whines? You do not like to be called a liar?

Abraham, go back and address the posts and quite ignorning them, and you will not be a liar, you saw them, you posted after them, completely ignoring them as if the truth does not exist.

Abraham, you ignore the truth, that makes you a liar.

Address the facts I posted and prove them wrong, if you can not do that admit you made a mistake, if Abraham will not do that, Abraham is a liar.

One more point as to how Abraham assumes and is wrong.

I am a man, not a missy, Elektra is a guy, Abraham can not even get me right yet Abraham knows Solar. 

Seriously, you thought I was girl based on Elektra? Like Electricity, Elektrafy? Of course I do like Carmen Elektra, so, you need to get a grip because you do not know who Abraham even speaks to.

Put up or shut up? I put up, all my facts are posted, go read them, see, that is why you're a liar, you make this post as if the facts are not posted in this thread. 

So address the facts in this thread, put up, admit your mistakes, or be called a liar and be known as a liar.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Let me be concise and succinct: BULLSHIT
> ...



yeah becki  Come on now. Lets stay above board, as it were, and keep hack-sourcing out of this thread


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Does Ivanpah produce as much GHGs as a plant with equivalent capacity using any form of fossil fuel?
> 
> No?
> 
> End of debate.








To borrow a phrase from you, bullshit.  It created a tremendous amount of GHG's to produce it all and it is so inefficient that it was built as a nat gas powerplant with solar thrown in.  

Good luck with your claims, but they are BS.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I can't answer that for you. You'll have to find your own reasons to excuse your chronic failures.



Weak.

But nice to see a Marxist doing the best they can with the little bit they are issued.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 16, 2014)

westwall said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Does Ivanpah produce as much GHGs as a plant with equivalent capacity using any form of fossil fuel?
> ...



It most certainly is (or should be) the end of the debate.  Ivanpah was built to produce electricity with as little GHG emission as possible.  It does just that.  An exceptional amount of GHGs was NOT produced manufacturing the plant and what GHG's were produced, will very quickly be compensated by the plant's normal operation.  

The natural gas fired boilers the plant includes are not there to compensate for any inefficiencies.  The gas boilers do not come anywhere near the capacity of the solar side. So, every claim you just made was factually in error.

Ivanpah is doing what it was designed to do.  End of debate.


----------



## elektra (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Really, first you say its working, when its not, and then you overstate how much electricity it makes, and at that you can not even use the correct measurement and, at that, you use like three or for different variations in your confusions, and now you stomp your feet and say the Natural gas portion will not produce as much energy as the non-working solar side.

Well, how about some posts with the technical data that led you to the conclusion or is this your imagination?

Abraham, thanks for validating another post by ignoring it!!!!


----------



## elektra (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Does Ivanpah produce as much GHGs as a plant with equivalent capacity using any form of fossil fuel?
> 
> No?
> 
> End of debate.



Yep, End of Debate, because Abraham said so folks. 

Thats it, we lost. No links, no technical analysis, not even a bit of commentary with any sort of technical reference. 

Arrogance and Superiority, the Liberal/Leftist/Democrat.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 16, 2014)

IF you had data that indicated that Ivanpah was producing anything like as much GHG as would a fossil fuel-powered plant of the same capacity, you might have something to debate about.  But you don't.  So you don't.

Everything you folks have brought up here: the burnt birds, the tortoises you should have brought up but didn't till I mentioned them, the natural gas boilers, the decreasing cost of natural gas and photovoltaics... NONE of that has any bearing on whether or not Ivanpah is producing electricity with VASTLY less GHG emission than would a plant of the sort you'd apparently prefer.

We get that you (claim to) reject AGW and thus think every penny spent trying to reduce GHG emissions wasted.  We get that you are frustrated that the world's scientists and the world's governments accept AGW and would like to spend money to reduce GHG emissions.  We get that you are angry that those of us who give some credence to mainstream science think you're behaving in an ignorant manner.  We get that in response you dearly wish to see anything we do to reduce emissions fail.  We get all that.

Big whoop. Fighting reality is guaranteed to be a losing proposition.  It's the end of the debate because there never was a debate.  You walked into the hall with empty hands babe.


----------



## elektra (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Does Ivanpah produce as much GHGs as a plant with equivalent capacity using any form of fossil fuel?
> 
> No?
> 
> End of debate.


 

Okay, Abraham wants to compare equivalents.



> Ivanpah, worlds largest Solar/Natural gas power plant, produces 105 mwh.





> Surgut-2, worlds largest Natural gas power plant, produces 5,000 mwh.



So, how do we compare equivalents?



> Ivanpah, covers 10,000 acres of land.





> Surgut-2 covers 30 acres of land





> Ivanpah, does not work but may operate 8 hours a day





> Surgut-2 operates 24 hours a day





> Ivanpah will transmit power 100 miles losing 70% of Ivanpah's power in transmission





> Surgut-2 is within 10 miles of its customer base thus losing only 7%



*Ivanpah will thus provide 30 mwh, maybe*


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 16, 2014)

Are you stupid?


----------



## elektra (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> IF you had data that indicated that Ivanpah was producing anything like as much GHG as would a fossil fuel-powered plant of the same capacity, you might have something to debate about.  But you don't.  So you don't.
> 
> Everything you folks have brought up here: the burnt birds, the tortoises you should have brought up but didn't till I mentioned them, the natural gas boilers, the decreasing cost of natural gas and photovoltaics... NONE of that has any bearing on whether or not Ivanpah is producing electricity with VASTLY less GHG emission than would a plant of the sort you'd apparently prefer.
> 
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> Are you stupid?



Still ignoring all the posts, nice, Ivanpah is not operating. Are you that stupid. And again, I am a man, why are you calling a man, a Babe, are you that stupid?

Keep ignoring all the posts, and in response I will simply go back and repost all you ignore. 
My hands are empty.

Abraham's brain is empty.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 16, 2014)

I call you a woman because Elektra was a woman.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electra

All three boilers at Ivanpah have been operating and putting energy into the grid since late 2013.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I call you a woman because Elektra was a woman.  Electra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All three boilers at Ivanpah have been operating and putting energy into the grid since late 2013.



No doubt rivaling the performance of an Energizer bunny on a moderately decent day.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...







Yeah, sure...end of debate.  Of course you can't come up with a shred of evidence to support your BS so of course you don't dare talk about it.  What a fraud.  Just a complete unethical, dishonest fraud.

Go away, you're useless.


----------



## westwall (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I call you a woman because Elektra was a woman.  Electra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All three boilers at Ivanpah have been operating and putting energy into the grid since late 2013.








If the boilers are operating it's because they are being fired by nat gas.  As I have stated, I have flown over the place three times and not once has the solar been operational.


----------



## elektra (Mar 16, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I call you a woman because Elektra was a woman.  Electra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> All three boilers at Ivanpah have been operating and putting energy into the grid since late 2013.



Wikipedia is not a source, see why/

The boilers are working, prove it, post something other than the same regurgitated press release. 

Practically Zero from all[/B] CSP is zero, all is not just Ivanpah. 
Is Ivanpah Online? | Environment



> January ISO data shows practically no CSP output during nearly all days in January 2014, meaning that neither SEGS nor Ivanpah were what we would call operational.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 16, 2014)

If you want to reject Elektra as a female character of the Greek plays (both Sophocles' and Euripides') you'll need to go a lot further back than an attack on Wikipedia.  I think anyone that's been through even a couple years of college would recognize Elektra.  If you never heard of her when you chose the nickname... well, that's just funny.  Got that Skooks?  This is FUNNY.

Ivanpah officially became operational on 13 February.  There is nothing systemically wrong with the plant or its design.  The plant is producing electricity and will likely continue to do so for some time.  As I stated earlier, the plant is doing what it was designed to do.  End of debate. Your desperate deprecations are just that.  

Look, I'm not singing that the plant was some enormous success.  It produces electricity with virtually no GHG emissions.  That's great, but we need more and the relative cost of solar thermal is high.  Right now it's looking as if solar thermal is not the the road to take.  Imagine what we could do with five square miles of desert covered in photovoltaics.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 17, 2014)

Nothing produces energy like a scam on steroids.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If you want to reject Elektra as a female character of the Greek plays (both Sophocles' and Euripides') you'll need to go a lot further back than an attack on Wikipedia.  I think anyone that's been through even a couple years of college would recognize Elektra.  If you never heard of her when you chose the nickname... well, that's just funny.  Got that Skooks?  This is FUNNY.
> 
> Ivanpah officially became operational on 13 February.  There is nothing systemically wrong with the plant or its design.  The plant is producing electricity and will likely continue to do so for some time.  As I stated earlier, the plant is doing what it was designed to do.  End of debate. Your desperate deprecations are just that.
> 
> Look, I'm not singing that the plant was some enormous success.  It produces electricity with virtually no GHG emissions.  That's great, but we need more and the relative cost of solar thermal is high.  Right now it's looking as if solar thermal is not the the road to take.  Imagine what we could do with five square miles of desert covered in photovoltaics.



Prove it produces electricity, I have been posting reports from California ISO. Which Abraham ignores. 

That is the California Independent System Operators, which is those people who control power on the Grid. 

What does Abraham post, his mouth and a news release from Obama's mouth, the Energy Secretary who dedicated Ivanpah on the 13th.

Abraham is a perfect example of stooge, all the government has to do is release a press release saying anything they like, and people like Abraham believe it. 

2.2 Billion dollars is proportion to the amount of GHG's released in the manufacture of Ivanpah, 17 square miles of mirrors, computers, cement, building, 17 square miles of raw material turned into a hunk of junk that delivers a whooping 30 mwh.

I can not imagine how anyone can look at that huge waste of materials and not realize that GHG's were not emitted?  

Its complete denial. 

anyhow, once again, more reports from February showing Abraham only need read a press release, or Abraham needs only to go to wikipedia, and Abraham believes, literally blindly. 

KW08*|*California sets yet another peak solar output record; sporadic contributions from Ivanpah*-*SolarServer



> Ivanpah off to a rocky start
> 
> Despite plant owner NRG stating that all three units were connected to the grid on February 13th, 2014, one or more units at the plant have remained offline on all but one day, and output remains relatively low.
> 
> ...





> During the month of January 2014, Ivanpah and the state's other CSP plants produced very little to no power most days of the month. This led to speculations that in addition to Ivanpah being offline, the Solar Electric Generating Systems, the world's first large-scale CSP plants, had been taken offline for maintenance.



Anyhow, no problem 2.2 Billion dollars worth of raw materials gone, and at that, its the last CSP to be built, already Ivanpah is obsolete. 

All that really mattered for the Green Energy the Sky is Falling Nuts, is that they built something, waste as much money as possible, so that when the next President comes along, the USA is so broke and in debt, we will never be able to build another power plant.

America's decline is what they desire. 

Next time you see the price of food, thank yourselves for building wasteful power plants that produce nothing of significance.

*30 mwh delivered* at a cost of 2.2 Billion dollars. 

Read what these jerks think about the USA, our history, who we are, and its easy to see why they love an Albatross strapped to our backs.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2014)

Abraham has yet to quote and address one of my posts, that is because Abraham knows Abraham is wrong and is simply here to make sure that not one word telling the truth goes unanswered with a lie.

Take a good look, in 5 pages Abraham has not quoted and offered even one iota of proof, Abraham simply parrots, it works, it works, it works, even despite California's Grid Operators reporting otherwise.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 17, 2014)

When I can talk to someone who knows where their own nick comes from, I might feel a little more responsibility for that sort of thing.  I didn't bring up Ivanpah.  I have no obligation to support this pointless thread.  Ivanpah is operational, it is performing as it was designed to perform and that is to produce electricity with vastly less GHG output.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of this debate.  If you want to keep flapping your yap about it, flap at the fucking wall.  You'll get just as much satisfaction.


----------



## elektra (Mar 17, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> When I can talk to someone who knows where their own nick comes from, I might feel a little more responsibility for that sort of thing.  I didn't bring up Ivanpah.  I have no obligation to support this pointless thread.  Ivanpah is operational, it is performing as it was designed to perform and that is to produce electricity with vastly less GHG output.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of this debate.  If you want to keep flapping your yap about it, flap at the fucking wall.  You'll get just as much satisfaction.



Abraham is quick to duck and hide validating all my posts.

Again Abraham parrots the lie.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.
> ...


Who's a denier?  I think it is you!


----------



## jc456 (Mar 17, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> When I can talk to someone who knows where their own nick comes from, I might feel a little more responsibility for that sort of thing.  I didn't bring up Ivanpah.  I have no obligation to support this pointless thread.  Ivanpah is operational, it is performing as it was designed to perform and that is to produce electricity with vastly less GHG output.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of this debate.  If you want to keep flapping your yap about it, flap at the fucking wall.  You'll get just as much satisfaction.


Huh? Nice, no facts, zero, I read all of the posts and still no graph or chart to show where Ivanhoe produced any power.  Let's see those reports that you so willingly wished to argue existed.  Let's see them, don't skirt your obligation on here.  You posted you knew, let's see that evidence as requested by elektra.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 17, 2014)

I've already posted two different statements that say the plant  is operating.  If you or anyone else (male or female) thinks different, it's now THEIR turn to post some findings.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 17, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > When I can talk to someone who knows where their own nick comes from, I might feel a little more responsibility for that sort of thing.  I didn't bring up Ivanpah.  I have no obligation to support this pointless thread.  Ivanpah is operational, it is performing as it was designed to perform and that is to produce electricity with vastly less GHG output.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of this debate.  If you want to keep flapping your yap about it, flap at the fucking wall.  You'll get just as much satisfaction.
> ...



That`s right. Nothing but nice fat zeros not just from prophet Abraham the 3.rd. Take a good look at the control panel of Unit #3:





The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System - In Focus - The Atlantic


> A monitor in the control room of the Ivanpah SEGS displays steam cycle data, on *February 27, 2014.*


Feedwaterflow =* 0*
Main steam flow =*0*
Turbine (G) output = *0*

And "Brightsource" said on their web page:
World?s largest solar thermal plant now fully operational


> *February 17, 2014*
> NRG announced last week that each of the plant's three units is now supplying electricity to Californias grid.


Maybe so, but 10 days later it sure as shit produced no power, when that picture was taken in this control room:







> Workers monitor plant operations in the control room of the Ivanpah SEGS on February 27, 2014 in the Mojave Desert in California


All they "produced" was  some hot air and a little bit of steam, 528 degF at 44 psig with superheater unit #3.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 17, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> If you want to reject Elektra as a female character of the Greek plays (both Sophocles' and Euripides') you'll need to go a lot further back than an attack on Wikipedia.  I think anyone that's been through even a couple years of college would recognize Elektra.  If you never heard of her when you chose the nickname... well, that's just funny.  Got that Skooks?  This is FUNNY.
> 
> Ivanpah officially became operational on 13 February.  There is nothing systemically wrong with the plant or its design.  The plant is producing electricity and will likely continue to do so for some time.  As I stated earlier, the plant is doing what it was designed to do.  End of debate. Your desperate deprecations are just that.
> 
> Look, I'm not singing that the plant was some enormous success.  It produces electricity with virtually no GHG emissions.  That's great, but we need more and the relative cost of solar thermal is high.  Right now it's looking as if solar thermal is not the the road to take.  Imagine what we could do with five square miles of desert covered in photovoltaics.



using logic w/ deniers?  Good luck.


----------



## elektra (Mar 18, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> When I can talk to someone who knows where their own nick comes from, I might feel a little more responsibility for that sort of thing.  I didn't bring up Ivanpah.  I have no obligation to support this pointless thread.  Ivanpah is operational, it is performing as it was designed to perform and that is to produce electricity with vastly less GHG output.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of this debate.  If you want to keep flapping your yap about it, flap at the fucking wall.  You'll get just as much satisfaction.





Abraham3 said:


> I've already posted two different statements that say the plant  is operating.  If you or anyone else (male or female) thinks different, it's now THEIR turn to post some findings.



Look folks, Abraham lied twice in this post.

1st Abraham thinks wikipedia and press releases are facts
2nd, Abraham said he was done with this debate but here he is again, parroting his post. 

Yes the debate is ended, this is Abraham stomping his feet like an immature man, "I said so, I said so!". 

Take note, I did not compare Abraham to a child, no need to insult children, further Abraham's behavior and posts are simply irrational and moronic.


----------



## elektra (Mar 18, 2014)

I guess AbraHAM does not have the intellect (brains abraHAM) to comprehend responses to AbraHAMs previous posts in this thread. 



Abraham3 said:


> I've already posted two different statements that say the plant  is operating.  If you or anyone else (male or female) thinks different, it's now THEIR turn to post some findings.





elektra said:


> AbraHAM3 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



If Abraham easily misses facts in this thread, is Abraham able to find facts anywhere else?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 18, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> I've already posted two different statements that say the plant  is operating.  If you or anyone else (male or female) thinks different, it's now THEIR turn to post some findings.


You're rich.  Nice to see you know nothing. BTW since you most likely don't know, today is March 18th 2014 and the plant still most likely isn't operating. But you know it is because you know.  A pigeon came down from high and stated it was so, so it is so! LOL


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 18, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I've already posted two different statements that say the plant  is operating.  If you or anyone else (male or female) thinks different, it's now THEIR turn to post some findings.
> ...



Are you familiar with the concept of EVIDENCE?

Ivanpah, World's Largest Solar Thermal Plant, Is Online | EarthTechling

"NRG Energy made it official early today, announcing that the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System was &#8220;operational and delivering solar electricity to California customers.&#8221; "  13 February, 2014

NRG Energy | Investor Relations | News Release

"News Release

World&#8217;s Largest Solar Thermal Power Project at Ivanpah Achieves Commercial Operation
- All Three Units of 392 megawatt Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Now Delivering Solar Power to California&#8217;s Electric Grid -

NIPTON, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 13, 2014-- NRG Energy, Inc. (NYSE:NRG), through its wholly owned subsidiary NRG Solar, LLC, today announced that the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is now operational and delivering solar electricity to California customers. At full capacity, the facility&#8217;s trio of 450-foot high towers produces a gross total of 392 megawatts (MW) of solar power, enough electricity to provide 140,000 California homes with clean energy and avoid 400,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, equal to removing 72,000 vehicles off the road."

If you know of some sort of reliable source that says something different, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Or even read it.


----------



## elektra (Mar 19, 2014)

elektra said:


> I guess AbraHAM does not have the intellect (brains abraHAM) to comprehend responses to AbraHAMs previous posts in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Abraham3 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



How about data directly from the grid. 

See how the parrot keeps going back to a press release.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 19, 2014)

elektra said:


> How about data directly from the grid.[?]



No thanks.



elektra said:


> See how the parrot keeps going back to a press release.



See how this immature young lady keeps substituting insults for content?

I didn't bring up Ivanpah - this isn't my thread.  I'd never heard about it till I read of it here.  And, as I have said before, it is producing electricity with a tiny fraction of the GHG emissions than a similarly sized fossil fuel plant would do.  That a brand new plant using several new technologies has issues getting started (issues of which I still see no evidence) should be (really, it should be) no surprise to anyone.  And even if the thing melted to the desert floor, the function of the place has NO BEARING on the validity of AGW and whether or not we should be trying to reduce our GHG emissions.

Why don't you all get busy trying to falsify the fundamental arguments of AGW or to even make some attempt to show why you believe they aren't falsifiable.  

And, if you'd like a hint: it's because you're simply wrong.


----------



## elektra (Mar 21, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > How about data directly from the grid.[?]
> ...



First and foremost, A-bra-HAM began the insults when abraham was called to the mat, by me. AbraHAM even googled and linked to wiki to see if I was a woman or a man, pretty idiotic. 

AbraHAM, you had a free choice to join this discussion, and did, I do not understand why you're crying and whimpering. You can leave the discussion at anytime with your tail between your legs.

AbraHAM, you never heard of Ivanpah until you read it hear yet you claim its working? 

AbraHAM openly rejects data from the "GRID". I guess I should explain to the imbecille. The Grid is a basically a wire that connects to the Solar/Natural Gas Plant (big shiny mirror thing), if Ivanpah was producing energy you could actually feel it AbraHAM on the Grid, with an Instrument (electrical tool thingy). 

AbraHAM, the big people measure the energy and report it as data.



Abraham3 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > How about data directly from the grid.[?]
> ...



What da matter little man, AbraHAM likes to dish out insults but can not take a nice dose of AbraHAM's own medicine?

Poor AbraHAM has to cry and point out that he is getting hurt to all the users on usmessageboard.

Maybe I start a sympathy thread for AbraHAM, make you feel better.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 21, 2014)

elektra said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > When I can talk to someone who knows where their own nick comes from, I might feel a little more responsibility for that sort of thing.  I didn't bring up Ivanpah.  I have no obligation to support this pointless thread.  Ivanpah is operational, it is performing as it was designed to perform and that is to produce electricity with vastly less GHG output.  As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of this debate.  If you want to keep flapping your yap about it, flap at the fucking wall.  You'll get just as much satisfaction.
> ...



NEWSFLASH!!!

wikipedia has sources listed. All you have to do is follow the links but you knew that didn't you?


----------



## elektra (Mar 21, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



I understand much, like people with zero knowledge of what they speak run to Goolge, which Links to Wiki, and the fools come back here and act like they are playing cards, they draw a card from Google and play it on the table like a Card From Wiki is the Ace of Spades and they won the game.

So thank you for the newsflash, you obviously went to Wiki to make sure there were links, right, and then played your card here, right.

You got me, you came up with a 10 of diamonds.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 21, 2014)

swing and a miss  thats the best you got?  wiki has sources that are easily retrievable at the bottom of each entry. Are you denying this?


----------



## elektra (Mar 21, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> swing and a miss  thats the best you got?  wiki has sources that are easily retrievable at the bottom of each entry. Are you denying this?



Not playing with a full deck are you, read my post and figure out what I said, if you can not figure it out on your own I can not help you.


----------



## elektra (Mar 21, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> swing and a miss  thats the best you got?  wiki has sources that are easily retrievable at the bottom of each entry. Are you denying this?



So, lets play cards, we will use your deck, facts and truth always win, so I have no fear.

I state Ivanpah is not producing Electricity.
I state Ivanpah at best will produce 50% less than 392 mwh as people have posted here.

I state this as fact.

You can disagree or link to wiki, and I mean literally, link to wiki, I will follow the link and all the links within wiki and give you an answer in seconds. If you disagree, link, or simply accept the fact that Ivanpah as of today, has failed.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 21, 2014)

nice deflection but I saw what you did there. Maybe you should hang-out in the coffee shop or the tavern


----------



## elektra (Mar 21, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> nice deflection but I saw what you did there. Maybe you should hang-out in the coffee shop or the tavern



Nice deflection, this is a thread about Ivanpah, you seem to be disagreeing with me, I posted some facts relevant to this thread, what is your response.

Go ahead, I do this for two reasons, to show I am right and to see who you are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 21, 2014)

polarbear said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



The whole damn thing doesnt fire up fully til 9AM and punches out 5PM on a GOOD day... Maybe the cameras just caught it taking a long lunch.....


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 21, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Oh Yeah Baby!!!!!  Thats how I follow ALLL my investments..  I rely on Press releases and wikipedia....   Hey!! You got the Nat gas production numbers for last month on the Wiki?

Theres AMPLE evidence presented here by MANY folks that Ivanpah is having severe issues. The largest evidence is that BrightSource aint talking much at all...


----------



## elektra (Mar 22, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> in MURICA too deniers:
> 
> The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today
> 
> ...





Dot Com said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly your right, and science is defined as your anti-AGW talking points. Dismiss legitimate research institutions and international communities that acutely confirm climate change is threatening our future.  You think updating the temperature record demonstrates what? Science is learning more about the world all the time, at least good science. Good science keeps advancing and verifying itself, then re-calculating for the new information even if it is different than thought. This leads to more accurate understanding of the world. The more we study it (since the 70s) the more we confirm climate change is largely a result of human causes. That is, those you identify as engaging in "not-science" are the one's confirming this.
> ...





Dot Com said:


> deniers on the warpath
> 
> Lots of negativity. Too bad they can't put all that "energy" to better use.





Dot Com said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > I note you didn't revisit 392 MWhours.  *You don't really like to admit your errors, do you.*
> ...





Dot Com said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanpah will produce orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than would any fossil fuel source with the same capacity.  That is - truly - all that matters.
> ...





Dot Com said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...





Dot Com said:


> swing and a miss  thats the best you got?  wiki has sources that are easily retrievable at the bottom of each entry. Are you denying this?





Dot Com said:


> nice deflection but I saw what you did there. Maybe you should hang-out in the coffee shop or the tavern



Dot Com, your OP is false. I have challenged you to support your contention that Ivanpah works and you literally ran from your own thread, you were not offline, I private messaged you and you answered immediately. 

So here is your answer from Wikipedia, Ivanpah does not work.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Lack of published performance data is causing speculation that the plant is not meeting expectations, but it's probably too early to tell.



Well, and there it is, in Wikepedia's politically correct jargon. Ivanpah is not producing energy. And what does wikipedia use as a source, same source I posted previously that all the Believers denigrate.

So thanks, first of all for stating that wikipedia is credible, hence my sources that are utilized by wikipedia is credible, hence Dot Com made a mistake or simply lied.

Dot Com is proven wrong, Ivanpah has failed.

Now lets see if Dot Com is a hypocrite, *MAN UP & ADMIT YOUR MISTAKES*


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 22, 2014)

"Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy".  Man up and admit your mistakes.  And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING  to do with the validity of AGW.


----------



## elektra (Mar 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> "Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy".  Man up and admit your mistakes.  And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING  to do with the validity of AGW.



You sound like an idiot, not even an original thought.  Weak


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 22, 2014)

Not every thread is ABOUT AGWarming...  Nor should it be Abraham...


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> "Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy".  Man up and admit your mistakes.  And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING  to do with the validity of AGW.










The graph below is from the State agency...the report excerpt is from KCET....and I emphasized the important fact for you deniers....




The red line shows total power production in megawatt-hours, while the blue line shows daily peak outputs in megawatts.

These figures aren't consistent with the world's largest solar thermal power plant going online. They're actually consistent with most of the state's existing solar thermal capacity going _*down*_, which happened for quite a bit last January as well. (Winter, with its shorter days and more diffuse sunlight, is a sensible time to conduct maintenance on solar thermal plants. But that's a guess on our part as to why that drop might have happened.)









Ivanpah Solar Project Quietly Goes Online -- Or Does It? | Concentrating Solar | ReWire | KCET


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 22, 2014)

Funny, I don't see the correlation






What do you think it MEANS that Ivanpah is having troubles getting started?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Funny, I don't see the correlation



I love graphs based on plugged numbers.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 22, 2014)

How the fuck would YOU know?


----------



## westwall (Mar 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> Funny, I don't see the correlation
> 
> 
> 
> ...







  Wow, when you go non sequitur you go all out!  What I think is that Ivanpah was a corrupt deal from the get-go.  It was never intended to work, I can remember, way back in the day, they were working on this type of solar system outside of Baker CA. and in the 15 years I drove, or flew, by the place it was operating once.

This is a solar system that I think actually has a chance to work....  However, there is no evidence that they have actually gotten it _to_ work.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> How the fuck would YOU know?



Because I'm too smart to be fooled by warmer BS.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 22, 2014)

And what bearing does any of that have on climate science?

The answer to that is the reason you see a non-sequitur between plant performance and climate performance.  The former is utterly and completely irrelevant to the latter.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 22, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> "Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy".  Man up and admit your mistakes.  And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING  to do with the validity of AGW.



he's a denier troll like the others in this sub-forum. After I pointed out the absurdity in one of his claims, he moved the goalposts lol.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> "Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy".  Man up and admit your mistakes.  And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING  to do with the validity of AGW.



It does mean "not producing energy".
If it is, then tell me why it`s still on the California ISO "curtailed and non-operational list" 


> IVANPA_1_UNIT1    Ivanpah 1    Unplanned
> IVANPA_1_UNIT2    Ivanpah 2    Unplanned
> IVANPA_1_UNIT3    Ivanpah 3    Planned, Unplanned











> A monitor in the control room of the Ivanpah SEGS displays steam cycle data, on February 27, 2014*.*


Feedwaterflow =* 0*
Main steam flow =*0*
Turbine (G) output = *0
*


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 23, 2014)

So what?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 23, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> So what?



^^^^^^^^^^  THAT is the reaction of a True Denier out of ammo.. 

You shouldn't have wasted so many posts attempting to defend an undefendable claim.. That's what.
And then shouting "So What?" only makes you look like you don't care you wasted your time (or the topic).. 

SOMEDAY -- IvanPah might work as planned.. But even then --- it solves virtually no grid capacity problem for California.. It's just an interesting (and very expensive) experiment at this point.. Bravo to the brave souls who's money got flushed...


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 23, 2014)

It strikes me that a boiler fired with Obamabucks would be cheaper to run than this looking glass bird killer.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 23, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So what?
> ...



*THAT is* how these liars "man up" when you confront them with the facts.
"So what?" is the shorter libtard caught in a lie response variation of Hillary Clinton`s "what difference does it make" .

You won`t see the IPCC "man up" to any of their mistakes either.
All they do is invent better rubber words to rephrase their previous statements.

Next month we`ll see another example. For now all we got is what has been leaked and published in German:


> *                                 Geheimer Uno-Report: Klimarat zweifelt an Prognosen zum Artensterben*
> 
> Der Uno-Klimarat IPCC zieht seine bisherigen Prognosen eines Artensterbens überraschend stark in Zweifel
> In den vergangenen Jahren seien wissenschaftliche Unsicherheiten  "offenkundiger geworden". Der Klimarat zog die Konsequenz aus den  erkannten Problemen: Im Berichtsentwurf werden keine konkreten Zahlen  mehr genannt zum postulierten Artensterben.
> ...


Short translation:
There is an "acute shortage of data" supporting the previous IPCC claims that climate change will extinct any species, while data to the contrary has been accumulated.
In light of this, the new IPCC draft does no longer mention any specifics concerning climate related species extinction.
Rostock`s university Ragnar Kinzelbach likens the IPCC`s stance to a fig-leaf covering up the real causes which threaten certain species:


> "Monokulturen, Überdüngung oder Bodenzerstörung vernichten mehr Arten als mehrere Grad Temperaturanstieg es je vermögen."


Mono-culturing and over fertilizing wipe out more species than several degrees of temperature increase could possibly threaten certain species.

All the IPCC does, is dropping the crap concerning species extinction they published so far and hope nobody remembers what they said before in their previous reports.
That might even work, were it not for AGW zealots like Apostel Abraham3 who keep digging up the old& outdated bunko and recycle it here.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 23, 2014)

When science tells you they have four good reasons for threats to a specie,  and the GW crowd gets their claim on the front pages...  THATs what the public and the media remember..  Its a huge disservice to the attempts to actually rescue endangered species.....


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 23, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > So what?
> ...



My claims are facts.  

1) Ivanpah produces electricity - and will continue to produce electricity - producing a tiny fraction of the GHGs that a fossil fuel-powered plant would of the same capacity would produce.

  HOWEVER

2) Whether Ivanpah works better than could have ever been hoped or burns to the ground in a heap of slag HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE VALIDITY OF AGW.

So, whatever comments you may have about the operation of the plant, my sole and appropriate response is "SO WHAT?"

And I didn't waste any posts.  I told you long ago that the function of Ivanpah was irrelevant.  Anything you posted beyond that point is on your head.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 23, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> When science tells you they have four good reasons for threats to a specie,  and the GW crowd gets their claim on the front pages...  THATs what the public and the media remember..  Its a huge disservice to the attempts to actually rescue endangered species.....



"Brightsource" has been, shall we say less than forthcoming right from the start:
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Statement


> The facilities would require *pumping groundwater*  from a new well for  "make-up water" for the steam system it evaporates  from the dry-cooling process, and wash water for the heliostats, as  well as potable water for domestic water needs.  Approximately 16,000  gallons of water per night would be used for mirror washing (that would  be almost 6 million gallons per year if trucks ran every night, 18  acre-feet, although BrightSource seems to need more as elsewhere they  say they need 42.6 acre-feet per year for washing).
> The applicant estimates project water consumption would not exceed a maximum of 100 acre-feet per year.
> But BrightSource doubled the proposed number of  mirrors on each heliostat and changed the mirror array fields from what  was originally proposed, and then wanted more water.
> BLM and CEC quote two different groundwater studies from the that  estimate  1,275 and 1,607 acre-feet per year of recharge, two other  studies from 2000 that range from 2,845 to 5,800 afy, and a study in  2008 that estimated 2,806 afy.
> ...



Prophet Abraham3 is getting increasingly irate as the true facts regarding Ivanpah are coming to light and is trying to change the subject in true libtard fashion


> 2) Whether Ivanpah works better than could have ever been hoped or burns  to the ground in a heap of slag HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE  VALIDITY OF AGW.


 [MENTION=38720]Abraham3[/MENTION]
This thread *is about Ivanpah* whether you like it or not.
You already started a couple of hundred of your own stupid AGW threads, so why don`t you f-off into any one of these and rant there.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 23, 2014)

Because you insulted me.

Ivanpah will eventually operate as designed.  There is nothing significantly novel in her design.  That all of you think there IS some deep meaning to her start up troubles looks to me like a symptom of desperation.  Whether or not Ivanpah works says NOTHING about the validity of AGW.

Let's say that again so the slow learners have a chance to pick it up.


*Whether or not Ivanpah works says NOTHING about the validity of AGW.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2014)

Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you.. 
This thread is NOT ABOUT AGWarming.. It's about Ivanpah.


----------



## westwall (Mar 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...








No, your facts have been shown to be false.  That makes them bullshit.  Just like you.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 24, 2014)

And by such statements you are known a liar.


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 24, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> And by such statements you are known a liar.


No he isn't.


----------



## polarbear (Mar 24, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you..
> This thread is NOT ABOUT AGWarming.. It's about Ivanpah.



When their shining example of "sustainable energy" runs out of water, which will be the case long before any gas or coal fired power plant will run out of fuel, *then* these zealots will say (again) that it was due to  AGWarming:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/23/3417814/global-warming-california-drought/


> *Yes, Manmade Global Warming Is Worsening California&#8217;s Epic Drought*
> 
> The president&#8217;s science advisor John Holdren made precisely the same points in a recent paper.



If that is true then Ivanpah was a spectacular mis-calculation and they need a scape goat...which will be the fossil fuel industry as usual.


----------



## Abraham3 (Mar 24, 2014)

Enjoy.  But I might then ask if this thread then belongs in an Environment forum. Seems more like Current Events or Engineering Today.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 24, 2014)

polarbear said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you..
> ...



But PBear -- thats so remarkably observant.. It's already been done.. Someone (remains nameless) tried to blame CSP projects like Ivanpah on BIG OIL.. He was defending "parabolic mirror" CSP design over these concentrators with flat mirrors. 

It's ALWAYS a Big Oil conspiracy when stuff goes wrong...


----------



## polarbear (Mar 24, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I wonder how much more  these 2.5 million m^2 mirrors would have cost if they were parabolic instead of planar.
The choice to go with planar mirrors was made way back in 1981 with "Solar1", (later renamed Solar2) Barstow CA. 
As an added benefit you can use the flat mirror array  as a Cherenkov Telescope after Ivanpah is defunct.


> University of California research teams began converting Solar Two into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001
> Solar Two, with its vast surface area and individually controlled  heliostats, is particularly well suited to observations of this type.


After they shut it down as a power plant they decided to market it outside the US:


> Christopher Powers, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, doesn't  think that the solar farm technology will be pursued in the U.S. where  other energy sources are cheaper, but it could have real world  applications today where electricity is expensive and there is tons of  sunlight, in places like the Middle East. [3]


They weren`t buying it but France did:
The Themis program and the 2500-kW Themis solar power station at Targasonne


> The *Themis* program and the 2500-kW Themis solar power station at Targasonne
> The system employs molten salt as the heat transfer fluid and 200 54-sq m heliostats. An electrical output of 3 million kW/year is expected, under the assumption of a 16-percent output efficiency. This performance is noted, however, to produce energy *that is 50 times more expensive *than nuclear energy.


Which now looks like this:
Themis Experimental Solar Power Plant, France | The Blog of Photographer Alastair Philip Wiper


>





> Construction started in 1979 at a cost of 300 million French francs (about 45 million euros), and was operated and managed by Électricité de France (EDF). The plant went into hibernation for more than twenty years, and turned into a scientific facility of the CERN, and the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique focusing on astrophysics, with an open air *Cherenkov Telescope*, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere (see IACT).


So unless the cost of nuclear or other power comes way up in a hurry you got yourself another 2.2 billion *Cherenkov telescope*


----------



## elektra (Mar 26, 2014)

Abraham3 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Abraham3 said:
> ...



Function of Ivanpah is irrelevant in a thread strictly about Ivanpah? ha ha ha (that is lol outloud so you can hear it).

Abraham, how come you numbered four points as two? I guess details are not important, what difference do they make, right.

1a) Ivanpah is a complete failure and has not delivered 1 watt of electricity to 1 single home at a cost of 2.2 billion dollars of which the taxpayer's of the east coast must pay the banks 1.6 billion dollars under the Dictate of rogue President. 

1b) Ivanpah may or may not continue to operate, it can operate but only with its Natural Gas boiler which is Ivanpah's heart. 

1c) A tiny fraction of GHG's?, A Fossil Fuel plant is constructed with a Tiny Fraction of the GHG's emitted as compared to any Solar Plant. Equivalent? A 2.2 Billion Dollar solar plant has no equivalent, there is no Natural Gas plant that is so inefficient. There is no Natural Gas power plant that produces and delivers next to no power. 

1cc) There is no Natural Gas plant equivalent to the worlds largest monstrosities.

2) The Validity of AGW? AbraHAM's Validity has no Bearing on what AbraHAM chooses to believe and worship. 

Nope, AbraHAM did not waste any posts, not even words, like



> My claims are facts.



AbraHAM can even define words, powerful you are AbraHAM.

No Abraham, a claim is a claim, even if AbraHAM says it. At least AbraHAM has admitted that all of AbraHAM's "facts" were in fact, simply "claims".

Finally, so no more wasted posts, AbraHAM, if you keep repeating yourself your wasting posts which contributes more "GHG's" than our atmosphere can handle, or is CO2 not a problem?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 26, 2014)

You can find almost everything you search for with Google who is one of the main partners of "Brightsource", but when it comes to find Ivanpah performance data you hit a stone wall. 
You have to dig deep  to get the current total thermal solar output for the California *"Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS)"
*
http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/ReportsBulletins/DailyRenewablesWatch.aspx
They publish some dates in plain text but most of them are in pdf and with minimal detail information.





*But you can still get it in detail for any date see below (***)
* 
For some reason "SEGS" prefers to lump all the other 9 "Solar Thermal" power plants together with "Ivanpah1-3" even though they must have individual data for each to do so:


> *(SEGS)* in California, with the combined capacity from three separate locations at 354 megawatts
> It consists of nine solar power plants in California's Mojave Desert, where insolation is among the best available in the United States. SEGS I&#8211;II (44 MW) are located at Daggett (34°51&#8242;45&#8243;N 116°49&#8242;45&#8243;W), SEGS III&#8211;VII (150 MW) are installed at Kramer Junction, and SEGS VIII&#8211;IX (160 MW) are placed at Harper Lake (35°02&#8242;N 117°21&#8242;W).[1] NextEra Energy Resources operates and partially owns the plants located at Kramer Junction and Harper Lake.


If you want to see the total "Solar Thermal" power output broken down by the hour then you have to paste in this URL:

http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20140325_DailyRenewablesWatch.txt


*(***)
For any other date change the numbers I highlighted in red for example Feb25.*
http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20140225_DailyRenewablesWatch.txt

02 is the month and 25 the day
 It was zero up until 09:00 then 85,222,243,270,284,313,322,256, down to 84 MW at 17:00 and then zero at 18:00 *for everything they got as "Solar Thermal" in California, including Ivanpah*

When they had their "Opening ceremony" on Feb the 13th they must have tried their best, but there is nothing to brag about in the combined total solar thermal power output for that day either:

http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20140213_DailyRenewablesWatch.txt

Nothing at all until 10 am then it starts at 60 MW, climbs to a maximum of 269 MW at 18:00 and is down to zero again at 6 in the afternoon.

Then the day after the grand opening ceremony :
http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20140214_DailyRenewablesWatch.txt
Nothing till 9am then 14 MW a maximum of 117 MW at noon then everything was down to zero at 6 in the afternoon


...and on the 15th it was zero MW all day long and at stayed around 120 MW tops for about 5 hours each day for the next 5 days.
http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/20140215_DailyRenewablesWatch.txt



Nuclear was most of the time at a steady 1130 MW, *conventional thermal at 11 000- 13 000 MW*


----------



## elektra (Mar 26, 2014)

elektra said:


> Abraham3 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...





polarbear said:


> You can find almost everything you search for with Google who is one of the main partners of "Brightsource", but when it comes to find Ivanpah performance data you hit a stone wall.
> You have to dig deep  to get the current total thermal solar output for the California *"Solar Energy Generating Systems (SEGS)"
> *
> California ISO - Daily renewables watch
> ...



These links have been posted and quoted and ignored.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 26, 2014)

Interesting that only "small hydro" shows in that CALISO graph.. 
Where is LARGE hydro ?? Plenty of that in Northern Cali.. 
Must have been purged from the list of Cali "renewables".. 

They got the mirrors at Ivanpah --- but they forgot the smoke...
I'm figuring what happened is that the mirrors servos stuck at the 7PM position 
and 80,000 (whatever) of them have to be hand-cranked back to the mid-range home position...

Abe and Rocks are volunteering as mirror crankers...


----------



## elektra (Dec 5, 2014)

Dot Com said:


> in MURICA too deniers:
> 
> The World's Largest Solar Plant Started Creating Electricity Today
> 
> ...


But there is another thread that says this failed, I wonder how many in this thread made false claims, other than the author of the op.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 6, 2014)

elektra said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > in MURICA too deniers:
> ...


Less than 20% of its rated capacity.. IS FAILURE!


----------



## Crick (Dec 6, 2014)

"So far, however, the plant is producing about half of its expected annual output for 2014, according to calculations by the California Energy Commission."


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 6, 2014)

Another typical Billy Boob lie.


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Another typical Billy Boob lie.








Rated capacity.....Expected annual output....are different.  Doesn't matter though.  Ivanpah is a failure.  A big fat ugly failure.  And you all love it!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Another typical Billy Boob lie.


Tell me moron, what is its designed capacity?  Your the Liar.  You project to much..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2014)

Crick said:


> "So far, however, the plant is producing about half of its expected annual output for 2014, according to calculations by the California Energy Commission."



20% of its designed output.... LOL   Solar arrays are only designed for 40% maximum efficiency because the sun only shines during the day...



Worse still is we have to keep online Coal Fired generation too.. because it is unreliable.


----------



## elektra (Dec 10, 2014)

But Obama used Ivanpah in speech proclaiming how great Ivanpah is, a shining example of how smart Scientists of the Government, are. The Secretary of Energy even said it worked great.

Milestone Ivanpah Solar Plant Formally Opens Concentrating Solar Rewire KCET



> Moniz lauded the plant in a press release issued before the ceremony, to which ReWire was not invited for some reason. "The Ivanpah project is a shining example of how America is becoming a world leader in solar energy," said Moniz. "As the President made clear in the State of the Union, we must continue to move toward a cleaner energy economy, and this project shows that building a clean energy economy creates jobs, curbs greenhouse gas emissions, and fosters American innovation."
> 
> The Department of Energy backed Ivanpah's construction with $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from its Loan Programs Office. At the ceremony, NRG Energy president Tom Doyle credited that loan guarantee with the plant's successful completion. (Though BrightSource developed the tech used at ISEGS, the plant is co-owned and co-managed by NRG Energy with Google owning part of the plant as well.)


----------

