World's largest solar plant now online

[Dot Com]

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

 

[ScienceRocks]

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

 

[flacaltenn]

^ 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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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 1950–2010. 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 2002–08. 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’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. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” 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 €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".[20]

 

[ScienceRocks]

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

 

[flacaltenn]

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]

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 1950–2010. 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 2002–08. 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’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. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” 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 €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".[20]

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]

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

 

[Dot Com]

your source links failed to post-through flacaltenn

 

[elektra]

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]

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]

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?

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 › 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 › 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.

Liquid Separators
As the pipeline enters the compressor station the natural gas passes through scrubbers, strainers or filter separators. These are vessels designed to remove any free liquids or dirt particles from the gas before it enters the compressors. Though the pipeline is carrying “dry gas,” some water and hydrocarbon liquids may condense out of the gas stream as the gas cools and moves through the pipeline.

Any liquids that may be produced are collected and stored for sale or disposal. A piping system directs the gas from the separators to the gas compressors.

Prime Movers
There are three commonly used types of engines that drive the compressors and are known as "prime movers":

Turbine/Centrifugal Compressor
This type of compression unit uses a natural gas-fired turbine to turn a centrifugal compressor. The centrifugal compressor is similar to a large fan inside a case, which pumps the gas as the fan turns. A small portion of natural gas from the pipeline is burned to power the turbine.

Electric Motor/Centrifugal Compressor
In this package, the centrifugal compressor is driven by a high voltage, electric motor. One advantage of electric motors is they need no air emission permit since no hydrocarbons are burned as fuel. However, a highly reliable source of electric power must be available and near the station, for such units to be considered for an application.

Reciprocating Engine/Reciprocating Compressor
These large piston engines resemble automobile engines, only many times larger. Commonly known as “recips,” these engines are fueled by natural gas from the pipeline. Reciprocating pistons, located in cylinder cases on the side of the unit, compress the natural gas. The compressor pistons and the power pistons are connected to a common crankshaft. The advantage of reciprocating compressors is that the volume of gas pushed through the pipeline can be adjusted incrementally to meet small changes in customer demand

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.