It’s not just Wind Turbines that kill wildlife, from the Wall Street Journal:
“A giant solar-power project officially opening this week in the California desert is the first of its kind, and may be among the last, in part because of growing evidence that the technology it uses is killing birds.”
“The $2.2 billion solar farm, which spans over five square miles of federal land southwest of Las Vegas, includes three towers as tall as 40-story buildings. Nearly 350,000 mirrors, each the size of a garage door, reflect sunlight onto boilers atop the towers, creating steam that drives power generators.”
“The owners of the project— NRG Energy Inc., NRG, Google Inc. GOOG and BrightSource Energy Inc., the company that developed the “tower power” solar technology—call the plant a major feat of engineering that can light up about 140,000 homes a year.”
“Ivanpah is among the biggest in a spate of power-plant-sized solar projects that have begun operating in the past two years, spurred in part by a hefty investment tax credit that expires at the end of 2016. Most of them are in California, where state law requires utilities to use renewable sources for a third of the electricity they sell by 2020.”
“Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs–Ivanpah costs about four times as much as a conventional natural gas-fired plant but will produce far less electricity—and also for the amount of land they require.
That makes for expensive power. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only that it will be passed on to electricity customers.”
“The BrightSource system appears to be scorching birds that fly through the intense heat surrounding the towers, which can reach 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
The company, which is based in Oakland, Calif., reported finding dozens of dead birds at the Ivanpah plant over the past several months, while workers were testing the plant before it started operating in December. Some of the dead birds appeared to have singed or burned feathers, according to federal biologists and documents filed with the state Energy Commission.”
“Regulators said they anticipated that some birds would be killed once the Ivanpah plant started operating, but that they didn’t expect so many to die during the plant’s construction and testing. The dead birds included a peregrine falcon, a grebe, two hawks, four nighthawks and a variety of warblers and sparrows. State and federal regulators are overseeing a two-year study of the facility’s effects on birds.”
“The agency also is investigating the deaths of birds, possibly from colliding with structures, found at two other, unrelated solar farms. One of those projects relies on solar panels and the other one uses mirrored troughs. Biologists think some birds may have mistaken the vast shimmering solar arrays at all three installations for a lake and become trapped on the ground after landing.”
@RACookPE1978 –
1/4 of 3/4 is 3/16; divided by 5.5 (difference in cost per MW) works out to solar being about 3.4% as efficient as fossil fuel per dollar spent – and that’s just the equipment cost. Add in the 15% fossil fuel increment for backup (increment in addition to fossil generation), the land cost (not included in the 5.5 x multiplier), additional transmission lines and substations, maintenance, unforeseen but certain excessive wear, etc., and there is no way in hell these installations will ever be economic – my back-of-the-envelope figure of $2/kWh is probably optimistic – could actually be substantially more than that. Building them is just pouring money into the sewer. It’s so obvious as to make me suspect the deliberate commission of waste here.
Our country is being run by thieves, vandals, wastrels and mental cases – that’s the only explanation for all this stuff to have been possible.
You calculations are completely wrong. The Power Contract for SolarReserve facility in Nevada was made public in 2009 and was 13.5 cents/kw (not $2/kw) and flat for 25 years even if oil prices go to $250/barrel. A bit high, but it is the first of a kind technology with energy storage. PV prices for utility scale facilities in California and Arizona are now around 6 to 7 cents/kw-hr. in the recent bids. Actually cheaper than natural gas. A judge in Minnesota ruled solar cheaper than natural gas – http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/02/judge-rules-solar-power-better-deal-minnesota-natural-gas . Renewable are now much more cost effective than coal and nuclear and with natural gas prices double in the last few years, very competitive even with natural gas. Once natural gas prices start being exported a LNG at world prices that are triple what we pay, you can expect some big spikes in natural gas.
For RACook and for all you Exxon lovers, check out the public information on lobbying and donations: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000129&cycle=A . Or just go to http://www.OpenSecrets.org and search Exxon. Total lobby expenses that Exxon has publicly registered is $207 million since 1998 ($13 million in 2013 alone) with 298 bills being mentioned in their filings. Lobbying efforts are required to be publicly filed. Historical donations to politicians of $18 million. The website shows the split between Repubs and Dems. No surprise they are big supporters of Republicans, favoring Repubs over Dems by 90% to 10% (or so). And that’s just Exxon. Completely legal though. Then check out the largest solar company in the US, First Solar. Total lobby of around $3M of which 2013 was around $600k or less than 5% of Exxon’s activities. There are not too many big solar companies so oil/nat gas lobbying and donation activities versus the renewable energy industry is probably 100 times greater. These are big, profitable multi-billion dollar companies versus a band of primarily new technology venture capital backed startups. Is that really surprising to you guys?
This, as they say, is going to be interesting to watch. The Saudis expect to install approx. 16,000 (16 Gigawatts) of PV cells by 2032 … what does this mean as to ‘the numbers’ (of panels, that is) with an interim goal of 6 (six) GW by 2020 (just SIX years off now)?
Now, the proposed use of some of their solar is to operate desalination plants, which makes some amount of sense as opposed to using solar to replace conventional power sources (given the character of solar over the course of a day).
Regardless, buy popcorn and stay tuned …
.
Then, there is this article below, leaving me a little confused because, you just got done saying Saudi Arabia has embarked on a “120 Billion (that’s a ‘B’) dollar” solar … well, it seems the Saudis are ‘covering’ all bases/options with this move:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-O-S/Saudi-Arabia/
Per the report (link above) the above story was based on, these two items are their energy goals:
– Saudi Arabia plans to construct 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years at a cost of more than $80 billion, with the first reactor on line in 2022.
– It projects 17 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2032 to provide 15% of the power then, along with over 40 GWe of solar capacity.
We. Shall. See. In my previous post I cited a story in which the Saudis’ plan for solar is “6.0 GW is targeted for installation before 2020.”
Who wants to bet me that the Nuclear goal is met, whereas the Solar goal is not met?
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? K Smith?
.
The nuclear program in Saudi Arabia is currently failing farther behind the solar program. Biggest issue is cost, which is far greater than the cost of solar. Solar with energy storage is a reality (see SolarReserve and Abengoa and Sener). The solar goal is achievable, nuclear unlikely (I’ve met with the Saudi government in the last 60 days). Check out South Africa – they too have been looking at solar and nuclear. In South Africa they have successfully built almost $5 billion in solar over the past two years alone, and the nuclear program is on life support and likely to be cancelled due to high costs and lack of support.
This, K Smith, is also telling:
Solar just *can’t* make it on it’s own … there is no cheating physics, no ‘pushing of the string’ when it comes to the actuality of power system engineering with regard to reliability and consistency.
.
Jim, that was the story about 3 or 4 years ago, not today. Investments worldwide last year alone of more than $250 BBBillion. In the US last year there was more renewable energy capacity built than natural gas – almost nothing built for coal and nuclear (and no prospects in the future). Pretty much the same worldwide. Dramatic decreases in the prices of solar and wind have changed the markets. Check out the stock market prices for 2013 and 2014 for companies like First Solar, Solar City and SunPower. Wall Street has supported 400% price increases. It’s going to be a solar world my friends, it’s just a matter of time.
You are a funny [wo?]man K Smith; I like the “Do you believe me or your lying eyes” bit too when the ‘story’ datelines above are from October and December of 2013 and January of this year …
Do you garden K Smith? Or did you assist when you were younger? Even back then you would have realized the part solar insolation (short for incident or incoming solar radiation) played in plant growth …
Are you aware of the mania that gripped a good portion of the western world about the year 1637? What parallels with solar can you draw with that ‘event’ vis-a-vis artificial bubbles? The stock market is also operating in an ‘artificial bubble’ because of Fed Reserve bank policy known as Quantitative Easing; I hope this is note the first time you have been made aware of this …
.
The stock market was only one signal, but not really the story. The real story is competitive electricity pricing. World panel prices have gone down by 80-90% over the past 5 years. From places like Minnesota, Colorado and even Brazil wind and solar are now viewed as cost competitive with all forms of electricity generation. You can fool a few people, maybe, but not $250 billion of investments worldwide in dozens and dozens of countries. I spent most of my career building and financing natural gas and nuclear projects, and have reviewed hundreds of economic pro formas on projects. The utilities and oil companies are striking back hard because they recognize the real threat. Too late though, the market is here.
This sounds so like much like a “talking your book” moment, as if done by a solar salesman, bookmaker or odds-maker, and with continued nutty mandates, requirements by your ‘partners’ in on the swindle (the government) you could force it to happen.
Of course, there will be consequences, e.g. a lowered standard of living as the ‘price’ of everything must bear the higher cost of energy (usually electrical energy in a modern society), and especially as evidence of fuel poverty grows among the poor who can’t afford ‘heat’ …
And you just don’t care!
.
K Smith, this post is for you. After you have finished reading the excerpted text below, please answer the following two questions:
1) Was this published: in 1983, 2003 or 2013?
2) If this was published in 2003 or 1983, why hasn’t solar made greater inroads (and faster) in the Saudi Kingdom than it has?
You can check your answer to my first question posed above here.
.
*sigh* Just because big businessmen are being unscrupulous, doesn’t mean it can’t work. Look up what Germany is doing. You’ll see how it’s done. 1) Guaranteed payments, sunsetted over 20 years. This incentivizes small scale development. 2) Development of storage and distribution with a combination approach (they produce excess power during the day, store it as gas by converting the power to methane via a water vapor shift reaction, and then burn the gas at night, as well as are working on installing special wet cell ‘neighborhood’ battery arrays. They use matte solar panels to reduce/eliminate glare. They install on roadways and roofs. It’s a good project and is working. But here in the good ‘ol US, we won’t let innovators loose by creating good incentives for small business and individuals. No, we just want to fund BIG projects that are total crap. Gotta love it.
K Smith:
It seems that you have still overlooked my question in response to your assertions which I first posed here.
I feel sure you will want to correct this oversight because your failure to do so suggests you were posting pure BS.
Richard
I find most of what has been said here very weak.
“Look at those stupid greenies! They say they are out to save the planet, but look! Their ideas have impacts too!”
This is just a straw man attack. Who is claiming that renewable energy sources can be built for free with no impact on anything?
Of course building a solar plant has an impact on the environment, but so does drilling for gas, or mining and burning coal. The relative levels of environmental damage have to be assessed, and in my opinion (cue WUWT burning of the heretic) carbon output should be factored into this assessment as a negative.
drumphil:
At February 16, 2014 at 6:55 am you say
Nobody denies that all methods for obtaining useful energy have “an impact on the environment”. Indeed, I addressed this specifically in my post addressed to K Smith at February 15, 2014 at 8:42 am where I wrote
I write to ask you for an explanation of your assertion that
Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?
Richard
richardscourtney said:
“Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?”
So I take it you are stating that the only effect increasing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere has on our environment is to enhance plant growth?
drumphil:
At February 16, 2014 at 7:42 am you restate my question and reply with another question. Your post says in total
NO! It is simply true that enhanced plant growth is the only discernible effect of increasing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere from their present levels. Some people claim that in future some other effects may become discernible, but there are no reasons to suppose their claims have any validity.
So, having reminded you of those indisputable facts, I again ask you
“Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?”
Richard
richardscourtney said:
“NO! It is simply true that enhanced plant growth is the only discernible effect of increasing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere from their present levels.”
Ok, so you agree that there are other discernible effects.
” Some people claim that in future some other effects may become discernible, but there are no reasons to suppose their claims have any validity.”
Except that there is no validity to claim that other effects may become discernible.
So, which is it?
“So, having reminded you of those indisputable facts,”
Exactly what were the facts that you just stated?
“Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?”
Well, that assumes that “enhanced” plant growth would be a good thing, but it is besides the point anyway. You aren’t just asking a question. You are also making the statement that enhanced plant growth is the only side effect of increased carbon levels, when you ask me a question like that in response to my statement that I believe that increased carbon levels would be a negative effect on the environment, as the answer to that would only settle the issue if it was in fact the only effect on the environment.
drumphil:
Your post at February 16, 2014 at 9:02 am demonstrates that you are the worst kind of dissembling troll. It misrepresents me in the most blatant and egregious fashion because you are trying to avoid answering my clear and simple question concerning YOUR daft assertion that
.
My question was and is
You attempted to evade an answer by posing a question in reply and I answered that reply. Your post I am answering misrepresents my reply to your evasive question as a method to provide a Red Herring which also deflects from MY QUESTION WHICH YOU ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER.
Your Red Herring starts by quoting my having said
then says
SAY WHAT!? HOW DARE YOU!?
What parts of “NO!” and “only” are you incapable of reading?
I specifically denied that there are other “discernible effects”.
Indeed, I stressed the point by adding my statement which you also quote; viz.
and you reply to that saying
YES! THAT IS WHAT I CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATED.
And those two clear and unambiguous statements are the two “facts” which you assert I did not provide to you!
Egregious troll, you have obfuscated enough.
Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?
Richard
drumphil says:
February 16, 2014 at 9:02 am
Well, that assumes that “enhanced” plant growth would be a good thing, but it is besides the point anyway. You aren’t just asking a question. You are also making the statement that enhanced plant growth is the only side effect of increased carbon levels, when you ask me a question like that in response to my statement that I believe that increased carbon levels would be a negative effect on the environment, as the answer to that would only settle the issue if it was in fact the only effect on the environment.
Before putting enhanced between apostrophes do a bit of research. The stupidity of your post is clearly explained if you start to understand that food for about 1 billion out of 7 billion of people is due to the enhanced plant growth due to CO_2.
“You attempted to evade an answer by posing a question in reply and I answered that reply. Your post I am answering misrepresents my reply to your evasive question as a method to provide a Red Herring which also deflects from MY QUESTION WHICH YOU ARE REFUSING TO ANSWER.”
How can I answer that question in a manner relevant to the subject if I don’t agree with the premise that enhance plant growth is the only effect of increased carbon levels.
As for the rest, seriously, get over yourself.
One concession I will make is over the issue of “NO!”
I should have read more carefully, when you started with “NO!”, in answer to my question:
“So I take it you are stating that the only effect increasing carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere has on our environment is to enhance plant growth?”
My bad.
“And those two clear and unambiguous statements are the two “facts” which you assert I did not provide to you!”
I didn’t realize that your opinion was the standard that facts were judged by.
“Egregious troll, you have obfuscated enough.”
Gawd, you do love to get all sanctimonious don’t you.
drumphil:
At February 16, 2014 at 9:49 am you try another Red Herring by saying to me
Don’t try to pretend my anger at your disgraceful behaviour is sanctimony.
Answer the question.
Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?
Richard
“Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?”
I don’t, but then I don’t know a lot about the possible negative effects of enhanced plant growth, so I can’t really comment. That question however, makes no mention of CO2, or effects of increased carbon levels, which is after all what we are talking about.
I mean, how would you take it if I asked: “Why do you think it is “a negative” to reduce global warming and stabilize ecosystems?”
I am still at least a little bit surprised by your attitude, but I guess I’ll get use to things round here eventually.
And, on the subject of being sanctimonious, do you still maintain your position on my comments about Don Easterbrook? You were pretty harsh in your statements about me. Has he corrected the relevant graphs, and provided the data necessary to replicate his work, or not?
Didn’t see much of you in the last thread on the issue started by Bob Tisdale.
Frankly, I came into this issue as a skeptic of the science of global warming, but putting froward here a few of the arguments suggested to me by some of my friends has been an eye opening experience for me. Especially the manner in which I have been treated personally in the process.
Drumphil:
I am replying to your obfuscations, self-stated falsehood and additional Red Herring in your posts at February 16, 2014 at 10:01 am, February 16, 2014 at 10:06 am and February 16, 2014 at 10:15 am.
Before that, I again ask you to give a clear answer to my question concerning your daft assertion. Again. My question is
Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?
Firstly, I made it very clear that I know for certain fact that the only discernible effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration above present levels is enhanced plant growth. Hence, it is stupid for you to ask me if I want to “reduce global warming”, especially when global warming stopped at least 17 years ago. And, of course, I do not want to “stabilize” biodiversity: I want evolution to continue.
But so what? None of that has anything to do with your refusal to justify your daft assertion.
Secondly, your “surprise” at my attitude is to be expected from an egregious troll: I don’t like them.
I don’t have a clue what your comments were about Don Easterbrook and I can’t be bothered to look them up. Bob Tisdale, Anth0ny and Willis each made the pertinent complaint and I saw no need for me to ‘pile in’. I was the most severe complainant at Scarfetta when he first posted here, and my complaints at the ‘Solar Team’ here and on another blog were among the most severe because I oppose bad science from anybody.
Again, so what? None of that has anything to do with your refusal to justify your daft assertion.
Thirdly, you have been “treated” as you asked to be “treated”.
You claim you
but you make no comment on that “science” except to ask me if I want to stop global warming.
And you made an assertion but you refuse to provide any justification for it; instead you evade, and obfuscate then feign indignation when called-out for trolling. Which brings us back to the question which you refuse to answer;
Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?
Richard
“Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?”
“I don’t, but then I don’t know a lot about the possible negative effects of enhanced plant growth, so I can’t really comment. ”
Are you really suggesting that what I said there isn’t an answer to your question? Second time I’ve typed that now.
If you accept that I have answered your question, then what on earth was the point of the rest of your rambling?
A little less time being sanctimonious, and a little more actual reading would help.
“Firstly, I made it very clear that I know for certain fact that the only discernible effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration above present levels is enhanced plant growth.”
Right, so it must be true.
“Hence, it is stupid for you to ask me if I want to “reduce global warming”, especially when global warming stopped at least 17 years ago.”
But it isn’t stupid for you to ask me “Why do you think it is “a negative” to have enhanced plant growth resulting in greater harvests and greater biodiversity?”, when I don’t believe that “enhanced” plant growth is the only effect CO2 has on the environment.
And of course the basis you have to justify your question, but dismiss mine is….. the self proclaimed fact that you are right, and I’m wrong. Not a lot of science in that.