World's largest solar plant now online

[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 (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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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’s ability to deliver full power over time, may be more important, the company says. Ivanpah’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]

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

 

[westwall]

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...

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

 

[elektra]

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.

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?

Michael Kanellos
April 11, 2011
Google today said it would invest $168 million into the Ivanpah solar thermal power plant being erected by BrightSource Energy, as the melodrama of solar thermal approaches its boiling climax

 

[Abraham3]

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]

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 (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.

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 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!!!

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...

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

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[polarbear]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

 

[Dot Com]

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]

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.

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

 

[elektra]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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.

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?