Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach.
Sometimes when I’m reading about renewable technologies, I just break out laughing at the madness that the war on carbon has wrought. Consider the Ivanpah solar tower electric power plant. It covers five square miles in Southern California with mirrors which are all focusing the sun on a central tower. The concentrated sunlight boils water that is used to run a steam turbine to generate electricity.
Sounds like at a minimum it would be ecologically neutral … but unfortunately, the Law of Unintended Consequences never sleeps, and the Ivanpah tower has turned out to be a death trap for birds, killing hundreds and hundreds every year:
“After several studies, the conclusion for why birds are drawn to the searing beams of the solar field goes like this: Insects are attracted to the bright light of the reflecting mirrors, much as moths are lured to a porch light. Small birds — insect eaters such as finches, swallows and warblers — go after the bugs. In turn, predators such as hawks and falcons pursue the smaller birds.
But once the birds enter the focal field of the mirrors, called the “solar flux,” injury or death can occur in a few seconds. The reflected light from the mirrors is 800 to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Either the birds are incinerated in flight; their feathers are singed, causing them to fall to their deaths; or they are too injured to fly and are killed on the ground by predators, according to a report by the National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Laboratory.”
– David Danelski, Solar: Ivanpah Solar Described as Deadly Trap for Wildlife,” Riverside-Press Enterprise, April 8, 2014.
But of course, that’s not what made me laugh. That’s a tragedy which unfortunately will be mostly ignored by those good-hearted environmentally conscious folks suffering from chronic carbophobia.
The next oddity about Ivanpah is that despite being powered by light, it is light-years away from being economically viable. Like the old sailors say, “The wind is free … but everything else costs money”.
But being totally uneconomical doesn’t matter, because despite costing $2.2 billion to build, Google is a major shareholder, so at least they could afford to foot the bills for their high-priced bird-burner …
… get real. Google would much rather use taxpayer dollars to burn birds alive than foot the costs themselves. Being good businessmen and women they sought and got a $1.6 billion dollar taxpayer funded loan, presumably because no bank on the planet would touch the project. And if the banks wouldn’t touch it, why should you and I?
But that’s not enough for these greedy green pluted bloatocrats. Now, they are applying for a $539 million dollar GIFT of your and my taxpayer money in order to repay the money that you and I already lent them … we should give them the money to repay ourselves? Give an unimaginably wealthy company money to repay us what we have loaned them? Have I wandered into a parallel universe? This is GOOGLE, folks, and they’re trying to poor-mouth us?
And of course, that’s not what made me laugh either. That is another tragedy which unfortunately will be ignored by those who wish to see electricity prices rise … you know, folks like President Obama, who famously said:
Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket …
Of course, such an electricity price rise would mean nothing to him, like every recent President he’ll leave office a multi-millionaire. And such an energy price rise means nothing to the Google execs who are burning birds alive … but for those of us here on the ground, causing the electricity rates to skyrocket is not the moral high ground, it is a crime against the poor.
So that is no laughing matter at all.
No, the part that I didn’t know about Ivanpah (and other solar steam plants), the part that got me smiling, was that there is a problem with a solar tower that is generating steam. This is that steam turbines don’t do well at all with half a head of steam. For full efficiency a turbine needs full pressure steam in order to operate. And it has to have full pressure, not when the valves are closed to let the pressure build up, but when the turbine is actually using the steam.
And since you can’t store steam, that in turn means that Google can’t start up their you-beaut solar tower until fairly late in the morning.
Well, the solution that the good engineers hired by Google came up with was simple.
Start the sucker up using natural gas. That way, first you can heat the cool boiler water before the sun comes up. Then, as more and more solar energy comes online during the morning, you can taper off on the natural gas.
But having a solar plant that runs on natural gas, although funny, wasn’t the best part … it gets better:
One big miscalculation was that the power plant requires far more steam to run smoothly and efficiently than originally thought, according to a document filed with the California Energy Commission. Instead of ramping up the plant each day before sunrise by burning one hour’s worth of natural gas to generate steam, Ivanpah needs more than four times that much help from fossil fuels to get plant humming every morning. MARKETWATCH
These good folks have underestimated the amount of fossil fuels that the plant would need by a factor of four, and they want us to follow their lead in reorganizing the world’s energy supply? And of course, in the familiar refrain, the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill for their ignorance and their inept calculations.
So now, I find out that the Ivanpah plant runs on natural gas four hours a day, and I gotta say, I did find that funny. But in the most ironic twist of all, the above link goes on to say:
Another unexpected problem: not enough sun. Weather predictions for the area underestimated the amount of cloud cover that has blanketed Ivanpah since it went into service in 2013.
And that brought the joke all the way around. I found that hilariously ironic. Because of alarmism based on computer model predictions of rising temperatures in 100 years, we’ve built a fossil-fuel fired solar plant which is already in trouble because of failed computer model predictions of the clouds over the next few years … don’t know about you, but that cracked me up.
Now, even the best solar energy conversion devices don’t operate 24 hours a day, or even 12 hours a day. Generally, eight hours a day or even less is the norm. And that has been cut down by clouds … so at present, dreaded fossil fuels are likely providing a third of the energy to fuel the plant.
Gotta say, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry about things like the natural-gas powered Ivanpah solar power plant fiasco. On the whole I have to favor laughter … but dear heavens, the damage that environmentalists are doing in the name of the environment is appalling. Burning birds alive in the name of making energy prices skyrocket? Have we sunk this low? Really?
In any case, my best guess is that this is a self-limiting problem, or it would be without subsidies. The “levelized cost” of solar thermal is horrendous. It is the only technology which is more expensive than offshore wind, and it is the most expensive of the commonly analyzed grid-scale renewable choices. It won’t work without the kind of multi-million dollar taxpayer subsidies that the Google folks think that they deserve … me, I would never have given them the loan of taxpayer money in the first place, that’s the bank’s job, not the government’s job. More to the point, I think they deserve to pay the damn loan back themselves.
Let me close on a more optimistic note. The referenced article says:
Bird carnage combined with opposition by Native American tribes to industrial projects on undeveloped land has made California regulators wary of approving more. Last September, Abengoa and BrightSource abandoned their quest to build a solar-thermal project near Joshua Tree National Park when the state regulator told them the plant’s footprint would have to be cut in half.
In March the Board of Supervisors of Inyo County, a sparsely populated part of California that is home to Death Valley National Park, voted to ban solar-thermal power plants altogether. “Ivanpah had a significant effect on the decision making,” said Joshua Hart, the county’s planning director.
If the final end of Ivanpah is the end of any further Ivanpahs ever, I suppose that I’d say that Ivanpah was worth whatever it cost … although I’m sure the birds would have preferred a different path to that outcome. As long as Ivanpah is in operation birds will continue to be burned alive in the name of driving up electricity prices … and these monomoniacal carbophobes still think that they have the high moral ground regarding fossil fuels?
Because I rather suspect that neither the birds nor the poor would agree …
w.
De Costumbre: If you disagree with what I or anyone says, please have the courtesy to quote the exact words that you object to. That way, we can all understand exactly what you find objectionable.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis, thank you. This solar plant is indeed ridiculous for all the reasons you quoted. But, there is one more in California suffering from a serious drought. Every two days or so they have to go out and use water to wash the dust from the reflectors or efficiency drops significantly. So add water wasting to wildlife destruction. The drive around fossil- fueled trucks to spray water on the solar reflectors.
I wonder if they ever even modeled cloud cover at the site. A dry desert implies lack of precipitation, it does not necessarily imply lack of enough clouds to reduce the plant’s efficiency.
Finally, if the solar plants owners were charged the same fines that gas, oil, or coal mine facilities are charged for killing birds, you could add another billion or so of dollars on the taxpayer burden for this site.
They used the same well proven models IPCC is using for years!
Not only did the models predict endless sunny days from the increase in global temperature but, because they were adjusted to match the increasing daylight observed from March to June, they predict that by 5 years from now there will be 24 hour sunlight. >¿<
It is a common tactic of homeless persons to importune car drivers stopped at red lights to clean their windows for a “contribution”.
They and their squeegees could be put to gainful employment washing crispy critters from off the mirrors.
I’m surprised they don’t have the EPA invoking the Clean Air Act to require them to hose down several miles of desert around this solar plant for “dust mitigation”. They already do this to construction companies and have proposed to do it to farmers too.
Sure the area is rural, but “The EPA doesn’t care where the pollution is coming from, and our lungs don’t care”. If this rural dust threatens the health of maintenance workers at this plant, AND puts humanity at greater risk by hindering their grand schemes for a post-carbon world, I’d be shocked if a massive desert spraying scheme isn’t already in the works for Ivanpah.
They do dust mitigation at Owens Lake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_Lake#Current_management
I remember when the dust story was in the news.
God made man from dust and and an exhalation.
The government has finally come around to regulating dust.
What about an exhalation? Isn’t that CO2?
30 billion gallons per year for Owens Lake dust suppression! Wow, I had no idea.
@KaiserDerden
“sell off the mirrors and the tower … run the thing 24/7 on gas and make a bunch of money …”
Brilliant! Cannot be improved upon……
Peter, great idea and then they wouldn’t have to con taxpayers to pay off their debts.
Ivanpah – derivation
“Ivanpah in San Bernardino County is in Chemehuevi that is Southern Paiute territory and the name contains only sounds that occur in that language from ivan – dove – and pah – water”
Arapaho Dialects, Volume 12 By Alfred Louis Kroeber
bird pee?
I find it extremely interesting that municipalities are voting against these plants. I have long thought that this whole house of cards will fall when millennials are no longer able to afford to charge their smart phones.
I’ve been writing about Ivanpah for a couple years. Willis touches on most of the major points – which make that $2.2 billion debacle laughable.
But there are few additional things – first; “since you can’t store steam, that in turn means that Google can’t start up their you-beaut solar tower until fairly late in the morning.” This is partially true. – because they aren’t storing steam they must wait to start the plant until late morning, and then must use natural gas to warmup the plant from the very cold desert night temps.
The CAN however store steam. One of teh key features the plant was sold on was the molten salt storage of energy created during the day time and releasing that energy (heat) at night. They chose NOT to build the molten salt storage that was touted as a key feature. It was not commercially viable and was not required to collect the massive subsidies.
Second, and this is from memory, the nameplate capacity is appx 400 megawatts. It was projected to run at 30+% capacity factor – a good trick since max sunlight only offers appx 20% capacity factor in perfect conditions as I recall. The molten salt storage was supposed to make up the difference.
But they also failed to accurately estimate solar availability. Then there is the dust problem – which they also failed to consider – which restricts available sunlight when wind blows and kicks up dust – and which coats the mirrors requiring more washing.
Then there is the natural gas issue. All the rocket scientists behind this boondoggle were simply too stupid to run the calcs on temperature. They KNOW the temps required to startup the plan. They KNOW the daily temp history, including nightime temps. They know the energy in a BTU of gas. It SHOULD have been a very simple calculation on the amount of heat – the BTU’s of heating – required to heat the plant to reqd startup temps. Yet they claim “surprise” at the 400% higher energy required to startup the plant.
Simply ridiculous.
And lest look at that natural gas use in real world perspective. Once again going from memory – so these may not be perfectly accurate – if I recall the plant is currently generating something like 160 MW, compared to its 400 MW nameplate. The AMOUNT of natural gas used however, is in the range of what a 200 MW natural gas plant would consume. They are generating less power overall than a 200 MW natural gas plant using the same amount of fuel. A nat gas plant with 90+% capacity factor.
And last … again from memory (I’ll check these number later and update if necessary) – for the same $2.2 billion we could have built an appx 1400 MW new clean natural gas power plant. WHich again can operate 24/7/365 (down only for inspections, maint and similar) – at a 90+% capacity factor.
It burns clean, readily available natural gas. It is not dependent on highly intermittent fuel sources. It requires NO, dirtier and less efficient peaking load backup generation.
And if we TRULY were interested in reducing emissions and greenhouse gases – we could replace old basic coal plants with these cost effective and clean new nat gas plants – and create massive real reductions.
Which, as Willis makes clear, shows the debacles like Ivanpah for the hugely wasteful joke – simply enriching the rich – that they are.
According to this article (http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/) the name plate capacity is 1, 065,000 Mwh and so it produces about a quarter of that, and sold it’s electricity for $167.00 per Mwh wholesale which is three times or more the rate from natural gas.
The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Plant molten salt plant has just come online, so it’ll take awhile to get some statistics on it. They anticipate 485,000 Mwh per year from it and it cost about 1 billion dollars.
Two additional plants from the folks who own Ivanpah were plan but scrapped due to opposition, mainly due to the problems with Ivanpah.
You’re confusing nameplate capacity and annual production Grant – the nameplate capacity is stated as 392 Megawatts in your link.
Simply ridiculous. They laugh all the way to the bank.
Thanks A. Scott!….
Find the site on Google or Bing Maps. Look at the size. Just one of the units Uses the same area as Palo Verde NPS – Which has three 1100, megawatt power plants with over a 90% average capacity factor providing almost 20 times as much power in the space of one of these units! Moronic.
I was station in San Diego in the Navy and made several Trips to Joshua Tree National Park and it sickens me to think they want to put units like this there!
Ironically, the unbuilt salt pile would be one thing I’d have no objection to subsidizing. I’d love to see ideas for buffering power researched.
http://www.voanews.com/content/solar-power-plant-in-africa-to-supply-europe/2500171.html
” All the rocket scientists behind this boondoggle were simply too stupid to run the calcs on temperature. They KNOW the temps required to startup the plan. They KNOW the daily temp history, including nightime temps. They know the energy in a BTU of gas. It SHOULD have been a very simple calculation on the amount of heat – the BTU’s of heating – required to heat the plant to reqd startup temps. Yet they claim “surprise” at the 400% higher energy required to startup the plant. ”
Of course they knew, but if they told the truth, they would not have gotten the project built, so they lied. This is a well known tried & true technique to get government money for crappy projects. There is no finer example than light rail and streetcar projects. (Actually Ivanhoe is good in comparison to some of these.) see: http://www.debunkingportland.com/docs/Pickrell(no_text).pdf
In addition, the footprint of said natural gas plant is much smaller than Ivanpah and is comparable to that of the coal plant it would replace. The energy density of Ivanpah (indeed any renewable energy source) is terrible compared to fossil or nuclear on a MW per acre basis. In fact, some older coal plants in my home state are being replaced with natural gas combined cycle plants and doubling their installed capacity, thereby more than doubling their energy density (since they no longer need the room to store coal piles).
The 400MW capacity is a direct lie. Output is calculated on a 24/7 basis, thus a 100MW gas plant runs 100MW per hour for 24 hours. This plant does not.
This statement is a lie, because that’s not what capacity means. If McDonald’s is capable of serving N customers per hour, is that statement untrue if they close at night?
Look up the words capacity and while you’re at it, look up Watts. Its joules per second. It’s certainly not calculated on a 24/7 basis. And actual power generation is dependent on what loads are actually applied to it, and is generally less than the capacity rating.
We’d certainly be justified to challenge McDonald’s capacity calculation if they closed when there were still long queues of customers wanting to be served
Viking Explorer
Capacity per month is different than capacity per day is different than capacity per hour is different from peak capacity all of which are easily conflated becoming rich territory for political expediency. “Capacity” another word massacred at the alter of politics.
BTW would you buy a truck that had the capacity to carry 2 tons at 60 MPH but only for a few minutes a day?
Mothcatcher, appears to be a random statement with no meaning.
Power flows according to ohms law and kirchoffs law. If a solar plant generated less voltage one day, then less power would be delivered. No customers would be harmed.
The capacity is the rated max power. If you pulled into a McD with a bus unannounced, then the store would not be at max power. Those customers would have to wait. However, this wouldn’t change the capacity rating.
Alx, watts has only one time period: a second. As a generator engineer, I can assure you that generators are rated in watts. For example, a Boeing 767 has 4 generators, each rated at 75 kW / 90 kW. This means that you can run the generator continuously at 75 kW. Running at 90 kW is time limited and will reduce life.
Think you well enough understand my point, VE, despite your protestations.
McDonald’s rated capacity is a useful indicator because it is capacity responding to demand (24 hours a day if the demand is there). In the situation we have here the rated capacity is much less a useful parameter because output is unresponsive to demand. Indeed, the angle in future will be to try to modify the demand to better fit the capacity. So we’ll all get sleep rotas and work rotas and AC use rotas according to government edict. Let’s hope we’ve enough sense to put a stop to all this before it gets completely out of hand.
mothcatcher,
Your premise seems to be that someone will force us to use only Solar PV. However, I have not been discussing anything related to that. All I said was the solar PV is a viable business that would mix with other sources.
>> McDonald’s rated capacity
The rated capacity is a number that is a constant. The current capacity may be less, but not more. I don’t understand why you would say “output is unresponsive to demand”. In electrical systems, current output is always exactly what is demanded. The flaw of thinking that a 400 MW generator is always producing 400 MW is one error I’ve corrected above. If 100 MW of load is applied, 100 MW of power is delivered.
I’m guessing that what you’re really getting at is the availability factory. With Solar PV, it’s limited to about 6 hours per day. That’s why I used the analogy of a luncheonette that’s only open for lunch. Luncheonettes are viable businesses, even though 24/7 diners exist.
A. Scott,
Not to throw ‘cold water’ on an otherwise good writeup but, at least in the summer, deserts don’t get that cold at night. On average, there is only about a 30F swing between high & low temps so, if you have a high around 100F, with only radiant cooling (dry air & clear sky’s & no cold font or other cold air advection to help the radiant cooling), the lows will only be around 70F.
I’ve never understood how that works. Seriously, I am curious.
It costs a fortune to campaign for the honour of being elected to serve. So how come the Presidents aren’t bankrupt at the end?
Who wouldn’t be willing to give everything for the chance to steer your country right?
Yet somehow they get it not just cheap but actually for a profit.
How?
It’s steering the country wrong, that makes all that dough, dummy!
Like “the producers”
Not everybody can be bought with money. The glory of doing their chosen form of good appeals to many.
Look at Churchill or Gandhi. (That’s balanced).
Or in the USA, Abraham Lincoln who split the Union for righteous reasons.
These people exist. Look at the vilification sceptics get for defending the scientific method; there are lots of these people.
So how come we keep voting for whores?
@MCourtney
It’s really built into the primary system. Outside of the Iowa caucus and New Hamphire, the powers-that-be have generally aggregated the primaries into a couple of “super weeks”. And the early primaries don’t necessarily reflect the national distribution of intra-party opinions, ironically causing us to have less conservative Republicans and more liberal (if that’s possible) Democrats. The changes were made, IIRC some time after Reagan’s terms in office so that someone like him almost certainly couldn’t get the Republican nomination today. I believe the unspoken justification is to get an early winner and hit the ground running even before the convention officially selects the nominee. I’m all for folks slugging it out as long as possible. Start the campaigns in the smaller states, keep interest in the out come alive, don’t shell out the big votes (California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and Florida) until the very end. That way the lesser-known candidates have a chance to be heard and the eventual winner has to appeal to a broader range of his/her party electorate.
Simple: Other people’s money.
Babsy
June 15, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Simple: Other people’s money.
————
Cha-ching!
How?
1. They don’t use their own money to campaign. That comes from campaign contributions.
2. They leave the White House having just lived 8 years rent free. Housing, food, travel, everything picked up by the tax payer. Its a lot easier to save money on a modest salary when you have no family expenses.
3. You’re probably tax free on the money you earned too. Donate your memoirs to some university library and they will value it accordingly. What are the memoirs of a POTUS worth? Well in excess of his salary, presto tax receipt, tax free savings.
4. The big money though is trading on celebrity. The Clinton’s were pulling down in excess of $100K per speaking engagement. Not bad for a day’s work and an all expense paid trip to boot. But that’s chump change compared to business interests. When POTUS leaves the White House, he has the personal contact information of anyone who is anyone in business and politics world wide. More importantly, even after he’s no longer POTUS, those people will still answer his call. So, he becomes highly sought after to sit on boards, and do “consulting” simply because large powerful organizations will pay astounding dough to have access to his contacts. We’re not talking movie star celebrity here, nothing so mundane as that. We’re talking a whole different level of celebrity.
That makes sense.
Influence is a form of wealth that can be traded into cash.
And I guess some use it for altruistic purposes.
John Major in the UK and Jimmy Carter in the Us spring to mind; a right wing and left wing example.
Europe, the only place in the world where socialists are considered right wing.
And I guess some use it for altruistic purposes.
Beware even that. The celebrity of former politicians is the influence that gets donations to their cause. It is the precise same currency. A large corporation will donate heavily in return for access. How does that line anyone’s pockets? Well someone has to run the charity, and they should of course be compensated for their time. Not saying that’s true of the two examples you gave, I truly don’t know. But raising money for altruistic purposes can be very profitable from a personal perspective. When Bill Gates sets up a charity foundation, we can all be pretty certain he isn’t doing it for the money. When someone who would otherwise be “leaving the White House broke” sets one up, we should be a bit more, dare I say it, skeptical.
The President gets $400k/y as of 2008 and then there is retirement. The retirement benefits received by former Presidents include a pension, Secret Service protection, and reimbursements for staff, travel, mail, and office expenses. The Presidential pension is not a fixed amount, rather it matches the current salary of Cabinet members (or Executive Level I personnel), which is $191,300/year as of March, 2008 (http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html )
MarkW
In response to MCourtney correctly saying
You replied
John Major is a Conservative, not a socialist.
It would have been better if you had made the accurate statement;
The ultra-right, the only people in the world who consider fascists are left wing.
Richard
Mcourtney
You ask: “…It costs a fortune to campaign for the honour of being elected to serve. So how come the Presidents aren’t bankrupt at the end?…”
I answer: They (the candidate) never pays; under some circumstances, taxpayers actually pay.
Don’t get me started.
“Who wouldn’t be willing to give everything for the chance to steer your country right?”
You can’t be serious. That principled avenue disappeared after JFK.
Viking, power plants are rated at their hourly output. Simple. A 1gw coal plant produces that every hour. Similarly a 1mw wind turbine produces that when the wind blows.This plant does not.
Grey, your are seriously confusing capacity rating and capacity factor. I’m an electric power engineer, so believe me when I tell you that you are also confusing power with energy. A 1 GW power plant is capable of producing that much power continuously.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying: my Porsche is capable of driving as fast as 140 miles.
Watts is like speed, while joules (watt-hour) is like distance.
Cars and power plants are not rated by distance or energy respectively. They are rated in power (Horsepower or Watts).
How far you decide to travel in your Porsche is totally up to you, and in no way affects the rating.
As if two aren’t enough, you are confused about a 3rd thing:
The cars rating in HP vs how hard you press the gas pedal.
A generator produces a voltage. If you don’t connect a load, no power is delivered. A small load is like driving slowly. What you’ve done above is judge by how fast cars are driving As to what their rating is.
That makes no sense. A Porsche could drive by very slowly, and you would say, wow, that car doesn’t have much horsepower.
Cars are rated in BREAK-horse power (BHP). And having driven a Porche I know they will drive quite happily at 30mph in top gear as well as 150mph (And I have driven at 150mph on a public road in the UK) in the same gear given a long enough bit of road (The “nullabor” in Australia would be great).
Patrick, that refers to how the power is measured. There is no unit of power called BHP. Mechanical Power in English units is HP, and Watts in SI units.
So funny how you are WRONG!
@ur momisugly Patrick –
Bragging about driving fast doesn’t help your case. Don’t even bother trying to think of a car’s engine in the same terms as nameplate capacity on a power plant – they’re completely different animals. A car traveling at a steady 30 mph is producing only enough power to maintain that speed – the throttle limits the amount of air going into the combustion chambers, and the fuel injection system meters fuel in order to maintain a stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. It’s effectively the same as varying engine size according to required power. The stated power on the spec sheet might be 400 hp, but at a steady 30 mph, the engine is probably producing only about 25 hp (and that includes the power going to the alternator, water pump, so on and so forth).
And it’s BRAKE horsepower… because it’s measured by braking the engine with a dynamometer, and measuring the power dissapated in the dynamometer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Prony_brake
>> nameplate capacity on a power plant – they’re completely different animals
Actually, they are both measuring Power.
>> A car traveling at a steady 30 mph is producing only enough power to maintain that speed
In a similar way, when a load of 100 MW is applied to the generator, a control system is active that will maintain voltage, resulting in delivery of 100 MW of power or 134,048 HP. That’s why I explained above that folks who were measuring actual performance says nothing about the rating, or the design. It might be crap, but you can’t tell from how much energy they sold.
This affects a lot of comments in this thread.
I did not. I believe that was Viking. I guess you have not built performance engines, fitted a Ford V6 engine into a Mini with a jack knight 5 speed mini gearbox? Ok so my spelling is in error. Bite me!
“LeeHarvey
June 16, 2015 at 10:01 am”
Engine output is measured at the flywheel, not at a given road speed.
Willis – you have only scratched the surface (of the alluvial fan that the facility is built on).
http://www.westyost.com/project/ivanpah-solar-electric-generating-facility-stormwater-runoff-and-sediment-transport-analysis
As you and others have written many times, it’s models all the way down.
This link takes you to additional documents:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-07-02_AECOM_Stormwater_Modeling_Review_TN-52284.pdf
Alluvial fan flow is an example of chaotic flow behavior made somewhat tractable but no less unpleasant by a stochastic (statistical) approach. The uncertainty monster is large and unforgiving. Some have tried a deterministic work-around (see first reference) using a very powerful computer model with variables that can be tuned, much like climate models that are tuned by their forcings. If you care to step into the tar pit, National Academies Press “Alluvial Fan Flooding” is a good reference:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5364&page=6
FEMA’s stochastic approach is here:
https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/13052
Great piece, Willis. Here in Britain, we’re just about to build the world’s largest tidal lagoon…just as soon as the subsidies and the future price of the electricity it generates has been agreed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-33053003
Oh, and the cost has already doubled!
I’m up for that experiment. Innovation needs a chance. It is reliable energy, at least.
Perhaps the expense can be mitigated by using it as a fish farm. Shellfish (whelks, mussels, crab lobster) could be contained and thrive. That technology would be attractive to the Japanese.
It’s a big expense up front and, yes – it will need dredging – but let’s not just reject any chance of new technology.
You don’t have to build every dumb idea to realize it’s a dumb idea. The Swansea Lagoon is a particularly dumb idea.
Mcourtney
Yup, shellfish (whelks, mussels, crab lobster) all mix well with power generation.
If you want to build a mud aquarium somewhere on your coast, at least be honest enough to call it that while you’re funding/building it. Otherwise, you’re just pissing away other people’s hard earned money. They may have preferred to spend it on food, medicine, school…you get the drift.
Billy Liar
You assert
Actually, compared to the existing UK renewables programme, it is a very sensible idea.
I advocated it in this Annual Prestigious Lecture that I was given the honour of being asked to provide in 2006.
Its Synopsis says
Richard
Mr RichardCourtney, paying £168/MW is a very dumb idea unless of course YOU don’t have to pay it.
It also only really produces for short periods 4 times a day.
I live in Swansea and it is a VERY DUMB idea.
There is one in Bretagne(France) close to Mont St Michel. At least there is a substantial tidal effect.
The Rance plant works well but maintenance is very expensive.
Capacity factor is 25% – at least tide is predictable.
The advantage of the technology is that you cannot use it everywhere, so you don’t risk building a lot of these.
MCourtney, are you freaking serious? You sound, for all the world, like some leftie, who thinks spending others’ money is justifiable. Any scheme that needs subsidies, a set future price, and which doubles in cost before it’s even left the drawing board should NEVER, EVER get built. Let investors build it and reap the rewards, just like a private toll bridge – there’s your risky ‘new technology’. Then if it fails, it’s their tough. I presume you are a fan of HS2 as well? And you must love wind turbines, too! MCourtney, no; whatever it is, if it needs to be subsidised then let the free private market ‘subsidise’ it. It used to be called ‘investing’. They are aiming for a price of £168 per megawatt-hour! I seriously think you have something wrong with logical thought:
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/taxpayers_will_literally_pay_the_price_for_the_folly_of_the_tidal_lagoon
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/renewable_energy_project_condemned_as_appalling_value_for_money
MCourtney should also read the recent article in Bishop Hill:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/9/the-proposed-swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon.html
The energy cost will be 4xtimes present rates (already high because of greentaxes), no-one has worked out silting effects. A CCGT plant nearby will produce more power at lower cost and footprint , and the material to build this will come from a disused Cornish quarry (owned by the same developers -natch) which will be reopened and extended in a supposed marine conservation area and involve extensive reconstruction of the Cornish road system . Oh , and it will be built by a Chinese state company.
It is yet another disaster that we , the UK taxpayer and consumer must pay for , just to make a small group of people very rich.
mikewaite, if you read your link you’ll see I have read that article at Bishop Hill and made the same comment there.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley, you know I am a lefty.
My point is that the first such endeavour with a long payback time needs an investor with a long term future. That’s not the private sector. That’s never the private sector. Basic economics tells you why – the private sector needs quick returns and to prevent the positive externalities from escaping to their competitors.
The public sector wants the positive externalities to spread.
The first nuclear plants were not built by GE or Hitachi.
I acknowledge the need for dredging. I acknowledge the cost is high. That is why I look for means to subsidise the lagoon with other income streams.
Just throwing away ideas as “too expensive, never going to happen, technological progress – pah!” That’s the attitude that saw eagles in flight and said “Oh their arms must hurt, let’s walk”.
MCourtney, as I [replied] to Richardcourtney, I live in Swansea, it is easy for you to say that paying £168/MW is OK, but this is not advancing Science or Technology and it IS going to hit the poor of the UK by yet again increasing their energy bills.
You can build 24/7/365 gas power station for the same price, not something that only generates for a short period 4 times a day, whilst [wreaking] havoc on the local area.
[The mods prefer not to watch anyone in the north of UK as they replaid…. lest their unconfined odors reak havoc on the bye-standers who have left the local area. .mod]
Mods, do you ‘know’ about the North of England?
“What’s all this shouting? We’ll have no shouting here!”
MCourtney. Actually, I didn’t know you are a leftie. Short payback times are required by private investors, and that is often annoying to everyone else. However, if you actually do the maths, you’ll find that so-called ‘long-term investments’ actually NEVER pay the money back. I have done these calculations many times myself on schemes. Proponents of schemes never factor in all that is required. Like I said, if ANY scheme, that passes these three ‘tests’ shouldn’t ever get built:
1. Does it need a public subsidy, rather than private investment?
2. Does it need a set future (minimum) price to guarantee its worth of construction?
3. Has the cost doubled since it was first costed?
The Swansea Lagoon ticks all three…perfectly.
Many Ivanpah style solar thermal plants are being, or have been, cancelled. In addition to their “streamer” problem their power also is too expensive. Estimation are that Ivanpah power costs 12 to 25 cents per kWh. While standard solar can be under 10 cents.
And keep in mind they do not build these plants on “spec” – they ONLY build based on signed long term contract to purchase the energy produced – often at exorbitant fees – so the purchaser can meet the ridiculous and outright stupid “renewable energy” requirements.
A Scott
With all due respect, I seriously doubt your statement “…they do not build these plants on “spec” – they ONLY build based on signed long term contract to purchase the energy produced…”.
They appear to only build these white elephants only after taxpayers have funded them.
Chip
I believe that A. Scott means “on speculation”. It is a term from real estate. A contractor may put up a building for a particular client, or he may build “on spec”, believing that after he builds it he can find either a buyer for the entire building or, more commonly, tenants to fill it.
In this case, “on spec” would mean they simply build the plant believing they can later find customers for its output.
Correct DJ
A parallel to Greece enters my mind. Prof. Varoufakis, the Greek finance minister, is busy seeking other people’s money.Proud Greece will only honor its commitments if they get a gift to pay back a part of their loan. Greece has always been a shining light of the Western civilization.
Greece hasn’t been a shining light of western civilization for going on two millenia. They’re just a bunch of socialist layabouts now with some interesting ruins. Who want everybody else to foot the bill.
noloctd, I think that was CG’s point. He may have thought the /irony at the end of his comment wasn’t needed.
Excellent posting as usual, this project has always needles me as it was based false studies and politics. On item that no one seems to note; is what of the shadow zone beneath this vast mirror array? Has anyone looked at the long term effects of denying the once sun-loving micro flora and fauna their daily allotment of sunshine. Sure birds are pretty and make a good statement. But what of their soil bound counterparts? While hiking in the southern portions of Utah we were warned not to even walk on the soil off-trail for fear of disturbing an important ecosystem vital to life in the desert
Assuming that the micro flora and fauna like the bird ‘extra crispy’, they should be doing fine. <¿<
Here are some more figures on consumption and output from Ivanpah:
“The 392-megawatt Ivanpah plant started commercial operation at the end of December 2013, and for the first eight months of 2014, it generated just 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity—about one-fourth of the anticipated level. During the sunnier months of May, June, July and August, electrical output was higher than earlier in the year with 189,156 megawatt hours generated, which on an annual basis translates to electricity output of about 600,000 megawatt hours–still about 40 percent below the original level expected by the owners based on meteorological data (1,065,000 megawatt hours).”
“The natural gas is used with auxiliary boilers to prime the system in the early morning, allowing the plant to begin generating electricity as soon as possible after sunrise; to maintain performance during intermittent cloud cover; and to eke out more energy as the sun sets at the end of the day. The auxiliary boilers typically need to operate an average of 4.5 hours a day during startup—one hour more on average than originally expected.”
“Bright Source is permitted to burn 1,575 million standard cubic feet of natural gas every year at the Ivanpah plant—enough gas for an average U.S. natural gas-fired power plant to produce about 200,000 megawatt hours of electricity, an average about 23 megawatts per day. Thus, at the current output of the plant, it is eking out just slightly more electricity being run with a combination of natural gas and solar power.”
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/google-asks-bailout-federally-funded-solar-plant/
It is not unusual to have start up problems, the output may increase, but the output is just 40 % below the expected level so it cannot increase by more than 40 %. The figures above speaks for themselves.
It is near impossible to find out how much of that 254,263 megawatt-hours is due to Natural Gas and not solar.
That data should be available via the Energy Information Agency. I’ll try to look it up tomorrow at work as I’m ready to pass out and commenting via mobile at the moment.
It is not and has never been a 382 mw plant.
No …. but it IS and has always been a 392 MW gross (and 377 MW net) plant
Nameplate capacity:
Ivanpah 1 has a total capacity of 126 MW and Ivanpah 2 and 3 are both 133 MW each.
Planned: 392 MW gross, 377 MW net[4]
Capacity factor 31%
Annual generation 1,000 GW·h
Website
ivanpahsolar.com
[4] http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=62
You do realize that actual power generation will always be less than capacity, and that it depends on loads and how it’s connected to them, right?
Imagine two nuclear power plants of identical design and rating. Place one right next to a big load, and the other 500 miles away. The closer one will deliver the majority of the power, according to kirchoffs current law.
Does that say anything about the design? The design probably sucks, so make an argument that actually holds water.
I just took a drive in my car to the store, and did not get the horsepower that the manufacturer said. Should I sue the car maker for false advertising?
I realize you are trying to make a technical point but instead are obfuscating the issue with McDonalds and now with automobiles.
You don’t have to sue the car maker if every time you went to the store the car erratically or stopped delivering horsepower on the way there. In that case you realize the car is malfunctioning, and you enforce the warranty or if the warranty expired you pay a repair bill or junk the car.
Concerning design, either the service is reliably delivered at the capacity advertised or it is not. A car that only runs depending on the weather or time of day is by definition not a good design. The point is for solar power, being unreliable is an acceptable design “feature”.
Oh dear! Car makers state a maximum, that is a potential MAXIMUM which does vary with fuel and wear, power output, BHP/Tourqe, at specific engine reveolution speeds. They also state specific “MPG” miles at a “CONSTANT” 56mph highway driving (UK). They NEVER state that the engine will deliver maximum output across the rev range nor do they state that economy will be different with town driving or use.
C’mon, stop being silly! (BTW I worked for Honda and Renault in the UK).
>> instead are obfuscating the issue
The restaurant analogy clearly demonstrates the invalidity of arguments related to “no back up”, or “only available for certain times a day”. It also shows how when there is plenty of demand, one simply can’t compare prices and declare that product X is not economical and is therefore stupid/evil.
With supply and demand, products arrange themselves at various different price points. They already do in the electricity market. On a hot summer day, a power plant consisting of multiple jet engines bids into the system, looking to make a profit. In January of 2014, some generators could not supply power for less than $1,000 / MWh. That makes $167.85 / MWh look pretty cheap. So much for not being a viable business.
The car analogy was only meant to illustrate the nature of the word “capacity”.
>> C’mon, stop being silly
Patrick, everything you wrote about cars is exactly correct. That’s why we use the word “rating”. It’s a specification rating. I’m not being silly, I’m making fun of all the people in this whole thread that are going on about what power they generated, how much energy they sold over 3 months, and indicating that this reflects upon the power plant rating.
Well, if you want to be clear with your posts (And I am guity of not being textually clear in my posts – Meh it happens), you should specify words like “rating” and the meaning you endorse. Otherwise you look like an uninformed fool.
Patrick, I think I’ve been clear, and you just didn’t read thoroughly or enough to understand the context. Please tell me where I’ve been unclear.
No you have not! You claim to be an engineer? I call rubbish on that!
Willis,
Thanks.
This is easily one of your best articles ever.
nameplate capacity is its 24 hour production divided by 24.
thus a 50 mw gas plant generates 50mw for 24 hours
ivanpah does not generate 392 mw per hour. full stop. to claim that it does, is deception, lies.
Grey, stop these ignorant comments.
Willis, I was waiting for you to tell us the numbers on the final cost of power output from this monstrosity, compared to good old coal.
I couldn’t find the contracted power price to PGE anywhere. If anyone knows, I’m as interested as you are.
w.
Their are multiple power arrangements with PGE and SoCal Edison. Found this on the SCE purchase. Weasel words is the best we will get under the current protective environment.
How much will this power cost SCE? Is the price of this power fixed? What will this mean in terms of cost to the consumer?
BrightSource Energy and SCE are not contractually permitted to discuss contract prices; however, SCE buys power at competitive rates on behalf of its customers. SCE seeks competitive offers annually and the BrightSource Energy proposal was selected from its 2008 solicitation.
https://www.sce.com/NR/rdonlyres/E3041166-1B30-4C86-8858-BBDBD089047B/0/090211_Solar_Announcement_FAQ.pdf
They look to be getting about $170/MWhr:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9owC0JIPRD-cHEyNlZmXzEtMUU/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9owC0JIPRD-TFU3MnQyZ1RBLUE/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9owC0JIPRD-OXBBaEJGQjl1VHc/view
as reported here:
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/
From that article:
The Platts article broke new ground when it highlighted Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports on second-quarter electricity sales from Ivanpah’s three units – from Units 1 and 3 to PG&E, and from Unit 2 to Southern California Edison – those can be seen here, here and here. The sales totaled 133,807 MWh and at an average price of $167.85/MWh that generated $22.46 million in revenue.
That relatively small output, combined with the project’s $2 billion price tag, could no doubt hurt all three Ivanpah owners
Small wonder they can’t pay their loans back.
“The Platts article broke new ground when it highlighted Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports on second-quarter electricity sales from Ivanpah’s three units – from Units 1 and 3 to PG&E, and from Unit 2 to Southern California Edison – those can be seen here, here and here. The sales totaled 133,807 MWh and at an average price of $167.85/MWh that generated $22.46 million in revenue”
From this article at breakingenergy.com
http://breakingenergy.com/2014/10/29/at-ivanpah-solar-power-plant-energy-production-falling-well-short-of-expectations/
Keep in mind this is what Edison and PG&E paid for it, not what it costs. That won’t be really known for years. I suspect that this thing will be running at a loss ultimately.
There is an article – behind a high pay wall – ill try to find it – anecdotal evidence is 12 to 25 cents per kWh
Quote
The Platts article broke new ground when it highlighted Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports on second-quarter electricity sales from Ivanpah’s three units (from Units 1 and 3 to PG&E, and from Unit 2 to Southern California Edison; they can be seen here, here and here). The sales totaled 133,807 MWh, and at an average price of $167.85/MWh, that generated $22.46 million in revenue.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpah-solar-plant-falling-short-of-expected-electricity-production
Unquote
Note
Cost 2.2 billion
Gross income 22 million
How much did the gas cost?
Endless panglossianism from wiki:
“It should also be noted that the cost wind and solar have dramatically reduced since 2006, for example, over the 5 years 2009-2014 solar costs fell by 75% making them comparable to coal, and are expected to continue dropping over the next 5 years by another 45% from 2014 prices.”
25 years to break even at this rate, which could easily increase.
Well that is another black eye for Wikipedia concerning controversial subjects.
Solar costs poorly compare to coal. Subsidies do not lower the cost of energy, only that the cost is payed from a different source, namely taxpayers. Solar is not even comparable to wind power in cost and reliability.
Adding insult to injury projecting it to be 50% less than coal in 5 years. This claim may be extravagant optimism but just as likely blatant lying, ignorance or the results of a delusional psychiatric disorder.
That’s good cost information but just a fraction of the story. Since the contracts are for 25 to 30 years, a good understanding of the impact of the deals PG&E and SCE entered on behalf of their ratepayers, would require knowing something about how those costs escalate into the future.
If you wanted to “hide” or “keep under the radar” how much the ratepayers are paying for this clean energy, it would work more easily paying a lower cost initially that escalates tremendously along with the associated assumptions driving a fossil free future (i.e. economical fracked gas is probably not in the equation.)
The aggregate price paid for Jan-Sept 2014 was $0.185/kWh after time of day adjustments. The data can be dug out of the FERC reports for production and revenues. The digging is, however, not easy as FERC is (deliberately) not user friendly.
Talk about an inconvenient truth!
All of this was totally predictable especially Ivanpah’s effectiveness at transferring money from taxpayers, residents and consumers to an anointed few.
And it’s the same with all of the other environmentally driven wet dream projects. e.g. the Drax power station fiasco covered here a week or so ago.
It is not just the birds in the air, it is also the animals on the ground. Google Ivanpah tortoise issues. The moved all the tortoises they could find and moved them to an area far enough away they would not return? However many were later found dead. I have also read that they sprayed (and will continue to) some type of chemical on the ground, covered it with aggregate ground cover, and other measures were taken to mitigate the dust on the mirrors. Thus they have created a five square mile dead zone.
Maybe a bird will get burned by the Nat. Gas burner, then the EPA will close it in NY minute!
I wonder how this project could make it at all. Some investigation of the viability must have been done.
JJM Gommers
Well, by sheer coincidence, Google’s founders are big Obama supporters.
This isn’t necessarily disqualifying, but it seems an awful lot of these goof-ball schemes (Solondrya anybody?) are backed by – wait for it – Obama supporters.
My thanks to those who have provided additional information. As you have noted, my objections are far from an exhaustive list.
w.
Brightsource and the environmentalists claim the $2.2 billion Ivanpah will offset the energy usage of “140,000 homes.” Of course, “homes” is a very misleading “unit of energy.” The reality is that Ivanpah would would offset the total energy usage of the occupants of 22,000 California homes, at a cost of $100,000 per home. See…
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/units-of-energy-homes/
But the crisping of birds is a minor issue. The bird death rate works out to about 1.3 birds for each of those homes, which is way short of the average 80 chickens that are eaten by the occupants of each of those homes each year. (2.6 people per home X 25 chickens per person). See…
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/in-defense-of-solar-thermal/
I got the sarcasm in your second par on my second reading! Indeed, the crisping of hundreds of rare raptors – not a problem because we all eat lots of farmed chickens! Hahahaha, do the greenies think we are that stupid? (Well, we are pretty stupid for giving them $2.2billion, and the rest.)
This is nothing new:
World’s largest solar plant applying for federal grant to pay off federal loan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/08/world-largest-solar-plant-applying-for-federal-grant-to-pay-off-its-federal/
In 2013, the Obama administration handed out $18.5 billion in renewable energy grants, with $4.4 billion going to solar projects. BrightSource came under scrutiny by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and investigators found the company received direct “guidance and support from the White House” for how it obtained its $1.6 billion in federal loans.
The Ivanpah solar electric generating plant is owned by Google and renewable energy giant NRG, which are responsible for paying off their federal loan. If approved by the US Treasury, the two corporations will not use their own money, but taxpayer cash to pay off 30% of the cost of their plant, but taxpayers will receive none of the millions in revenues the plant will generate over the next 30 years.
and as for bird killing…
“…The plants’ owner at the time, BrightSource Energy, said it will likely kill only a thousand birds a year…”
A recent study released by the California Energy Commission conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity called Ivanpah a “mega-trap” that will kill up to 28,000 birds a year.
If only 10 birds a year would be BURNED ALIVE by a fossil fuel power plant, there would be a worldwide and maddening screaming by all the usually anti-carbon MSM to shut down that power plant at once. But when a Solar power plant BURNS ALIVE 1000 birds per year (or even much more), that seems to be quite OK for them !
Well, sounds rather insane, but this is just the normal day-to-day routine of Green Climatism…
a dead duck at any other “fossil fueled” plant does cost fines even when proven the death was unrelated to the plant.
The initial killing rate is 28000, but their “calculation” showed that gradually would go down to 1000 and after a prolonged period of time to zero.
Solar thermal is best utilized as a fuel savings add-on to a high efficiency gas turbine power plant. That is essentially what has happened at Ivanpah. That’s what Florida Power and Light did at the Martin Solar Thermal plant. They use solar thermal heat collected with parabolic troughs to reduce natural gas BTU requirements during normal operations. It will never break even, unless FPL can somehow collect on a carbon credit of around $80/ton CO2. OH, and they had a few reportable leaks of thermal transfer oil early on.
Here are the details-
Martin Solar Plant
Owned by FPL
Opened in September 2010
Indiantown, FL
Cost = $400M
At full capacity of 75MW, it offsets 500 BTU/kWhr of heat from gas-fired combined cycle 1150 MW plant.
Expected life = 20 or 30 years (depends on source)
Over life, it will save $178M in fuel costs.
Over life, it will avoid 2.75M tons of CO2 emissions.
Expected to generate 155,000 MWhr per year.
At $40/MWhr, this is $6.2M per year of electricity.
Capital cost = $5.33/Wpeak
Carbon price = ($400M – $178M)/2.75M = $80.73/ton CO2
Price of natural gas = $4.50/MBTU
Gas savings = 500/1,000,000*4.5 = 0.23 cents/kWhr fuel savings
Typical heat rate = 8000 BTU/kWhr
Fuel cost = 3.6 cents/kWhr wholesale
Savings of fuel = 0.23/3.6 = 6.4%
AS usual, A nuclear power plant has a leak with less radiation in it than some cities drinking water supply and it is on the front page of NYT, A solar plant dumps highly toxic oil and nothing can be found about it.
Thanks chris, this is just the kind of program I was wondering about earlier.
A link to this article should be posted on Google Twitter.
A very telling story which is more depressing than hilarious…
But alas: “That’s a tragedy which unfortunately will be mostly ignored by those good-hearted environmentally conscious folks suffering from chronic carbophobia.”
BTW: “Carbophobia” is an excellent psychological description for these deluded do-gooders and our current “zeitgeist”. Future generations will call this embarrassing stage of mankind maybe the “Carbophobic Era”. Then folks will have realized finally that Carbophobia is actually Biophobia…
Yet another problem with this multi-billion dollar boondoggle is the fact that the bright glare from it blinds aircraft pilots as they are flying within a certain distance of it:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/govt-report-confirms-that-southwest-solar-plant-blinds-airline-pilots/
Sadly, I can envision the day when the blinding glare is going to lead to a mid-air collision that will result in many deaths. In my mind, It’s just of matter of when, not if. And Google and the environmental movement will then have the loss of human lives on its hands, not just avian ones. The Airline Pilots Association has already complained about the problem… but apparently to no avail so far.
If and when this damn thing finally gets shut down someday, it will be interesting to see what they are going to do about those nearly 350,000 mirrors that will suddenly be out of commission. I suppose retailers who sell mirrors would buy then cheap at wholesale prices, but they would have to foot the cost of framing them for residential use.
Then of course there is also the issue of sandstorms that probably go barreling through the area every now and then as we have seen in Phoenix and Las Vegas on occasion. How much damage to all those mirrors is the storm going to cause?
Like Willis, I am having trouble here deciding whether to laugh or to cry. Some of both I guess…….
They will probably have to start routing airplanes around this plant. So we can add extra jet fuel to the cost of this disaster.
……which probably offsets much if not most of the fossil fuel presumably saved by the facility itself I would guess. Complete idiocy.
CD153, thanks for illuminating the issue of the laser pointer of doom. Memory serves, it’s a felony to flash an aircraft with a simple laser pointer used in meetings. It would be amusing to see the spin to avoid charging Ivanpah with such a crime.
Jquip:
Didn’t know pointing one of those things at an aircraft was illegal. Together with the bird frying, seeing Ivanpah get off scott free as an aviation hazard is called hypocrisy and a double standard. And. as I’ve said here before, double standards suck.
Can’t you reframe the whole thing as an anti-missile “starwar” program?
Only during the day. ^¿^