Solar Fossil Fueled Fantasies

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.

ivanpah solar power plant

 

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 …

Ivanpah Solar power II

 

… 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.

5 2 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

455 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave_G
June 15, 2015 3:23 pm

I wonder if Google will have the honesty and integrity to come ‘here’ and explain their position?

catweazle666
Reply to  Dave_G
June 15, 2015 3:44 pm

Dave_G: “I wonder if Google will have the honesty and integrity to come ‘here’ and explain their position?”
Wow, the words “Google” and “honesty and integrity” in the same sentence.
That’s something you don’t see every day.

Alan Robertson
June 15, 2015 3:24 pm

What? Who thinks that the Ivanpah design engineers weren’t smart enough to calculate the facility’s economic realities? The whole project was designed with one goal in mind- to bilk legions of little guys out of their money.

June 15, 2015 3:25 pm

No one wants to calculate the total cost of solar energy generation.
1) The energy loss due to the lack of ability to precisely focus the Sun’s image on the tower. Lots of energy is simply lost. Damn diffraction makes the reflected light spread out.
2) the water and energy needed to manufacture the mirrors and drivers.
3) the energy needed to manufacture the turbine. Does it use rare earths in its magnets?
4) the energy needed to install the outside electrical connection. Power lines are EXPENSIVE.
5) the loss of desert habitat. Poor tortoises. Who will speak for them?
6) The loss of energy due to clouds. And the Sun does not shine at night. How odd.
BOTTOM LINE: our ability to capture solar energy in a useful form was solved by nature several billion years ago. It is known a chlorophyll. It is cool. How about just harvesting plankton? Or using weeds?
The solution has been obvious for 60 years. Orbit a Powersat, and do the generation in space. Then all you need is a rectenna farm on the surface.

Stan
Reply to  mathman2
June 15, 2015 4:10 pm

Very close mathman2. You said “our ability to capture solar energy in a useful form was solved by nature several billion years ago. It is known a chlorophyll.” That’s what produced fossil fuels. Which are good for another several hundred years, at very low $ cost and very low environmental cost. Which gives us plenty of time to work out fusion.

prcgoard
Reply to  mathman2
June 15, 2015 11:24 pm

An other source of thermal loss, not noted, is that the unit at the top of the tower is open to receive radiation from the mirrors and must re-radiate from its heated surfaces – very inefficient. Choice of surface finish may help, but difficult at its operating temperature.

Crispin in Waterloo
June 15, 2015 3:28 pm

They have all those computer steerable mirrors on frames. Suppose they put PV panels on the frames instead. How much power would they get from 5 sq miles of PV panels? Isn’t it about 2000 MW in bright sunlight? Cut it in half for power spacing. Cut it in half again for incompetence. It is still more than the nameplate rating of solar steam.

Vanderpool
June 15, 2015 3:37 pm

I posted a link to this article in the ‘comments’ of the following ‘Economist’ writeup:
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21653618-falling-cost-renewable-energy-may-allow-africa-bypass
One hopes somebody looks at the Ivanpah numbers before committing to installing more “brightly polished mirrors flashing light across the dusty khaki scrubland of South Africa’s inhospitable Northern Cape province as they rotate slowly to follow the sun, producing electricity for 80,000 homes”

Another Scott
June 15, 2015 3:51 pm

If all the power transmission infrastructure is there and the environment has already been impacted, they should just remove all the mirrors and replace them with a nuclear generating station. It would result in less carbon emissions and give the birds something to poop on.

Shinku
Reply to  Another Scott
June 15, 2015 4:07 pm

I wish birds weren’t so bird brained. They could collectively work together and cover all the panels with poop rendering them less lethal. And make the lives of these econaughts .. Poopy.

Toto
June 15, 2015 3:53 pm

What has Google learned from this? Big white elephant in the room-closet?
Not all the Google engineers still have blind faith in renewables:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
(previously mentioned on WUWT)

Shinku
June 15, 2015 4:05 pm

I can’t even… lol. Anything that takes up land will be Very expensive. As Lex Luthor once said. LAND LAND LAND. An Exposed Solar reactor like this steam plant is bound to be expensive! I don’t know about these people but I don’t want my “reactors” to be exposed in the open.. and fry birds.. I like mine in a contained area. Unlike Solar Power you can always build your nuclear reactors in a Confined and Small Space. Even build it Vertically! As for solar panels.. yeah good luck with that project. 🙂

Steve
June 15, 2015 4:06 pm

When I was in college our engineering class on “Power and Energy” took a field trip to visit the “Solar One” facility near Dagget, in this same Mohave desert area of California as this Ivanpah facility. That was in 1984 or 1985, and Solar One was the same type of concentration type solar power plant with a boiler at the focal point of the mirrors as this Ivanpah plant. It was a good trip, we got to go into the control room and the display showed the plant was generating close to 10 MW that afternoon, near its capacity.
I saw that same type of bright spot shown in your first picture above where the mirrors are focused off the boiler when I was driving past the Solar One site a few years later. I didn’t see them do that “off the boiler focusing” when we visited the plant. The Solar One plant was only a 10 MW plant, this Ivanpah plant is much bigger, nearly 400 MW according to Wikipedia, but it seems like there must have been the same bird killing seen with Solar one back in the 1980s as they are seeing with Ivanpah. Unless at the higher solar concentration level it is a much bigger problem. I even remember telling the friend I was driving with when I saw that bright spot at Solar One “Can you imagine a bird flying through that?” Maybe that really wasn’t a problem with Solar One power levels? Or it was and they didn’t think it was worth doing anything about when they built Ivanpah.

June 15, 2015 4:21 pm

great article. It’s be nice to see the agency names for the loan and the grant to repay the loan. EPA? DOE? USDA? BLM? Fish and Wildlife? Without having researched this particular facility I’d wager that all of those agencies have expended some resources on this project along the way. NOW there would be a nice follow up article: How much money is expended collaterally by the regulatory agencies in the process of pushing these white elephants through?

June 15, 2015 4:23 pm

Very interesting. All these solar panels had to use fossil fuels that create that scary carbon, where are the carbophobiacs on that?
Google should be able to pay out of pocket considering how much they make on ad revenue, it is just plain unethical for taxpayers to foot the bill for googles projects.

VikingExplorer
Reply to  onenameleft
June 16, 2015 1:22 am

Excessive taxes are unethical. The majority voted for Obama twice. Google is not being unethical to request some of their tax money back.

jlurtz
June 15, 2015 4:32 pm

check out jlurtz.wordpress.com for a low temperature non-carnot thermodynamic cycle. No bird fries. Low temperature can be stored at 150F underground using water. What is it that you won’t even look at a new approach??
You all have been brainwashed by the system!!!! At least try to expand your brains with information that you can evaluate for yourself !! Accept or reject, I don’t care, but try to learn !!

Jai Mitchell
June 15, 2015 4:35 pm

6 GigaWatts of utility-scale solar generation at peak today in the State of California.
http://content.caiso.com/outlook/SP/ems_renewables.gif
There is about 6 more GigaWatts of home and small business rooftop generation that is not shown on the chart (since it is non-dispatchable to the grid).
current projections are for a 27% decrease in annual PV module costs over the next 3 years.
current targets are that solar panels will cost $0.45 per Watt of generation capacity by 2019.
compare:
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/blog/Image/naam-solar-moore_s-law-1.jpg

J Broadbent
June 15, 2015 4:40 pm

S.W.O.T analysis
Strengths
– Cooks Birds
– Works best on sunny days
Weaknesses
– generates expensive electricity in between peak demand periods = useless
Opportunities
– Move to deep south to fry chickens ‘Colonel Google’s Southern Fried Chicken’
Threats
– The looney left will move from Chronic Coalaphobia as the money dries up, returning to that old chestnut saving birds and chain themselves to the tower as a protest against industrial scale chicken frying.

old44
June 15, 2015 4:50 pm

Google, not so good at green energy but great at helping you find pornograhy.

JohnWho
Reply to  old44
June 15, 2015 4:58 pm

Wait…are you saying there is pornography on the Internet?
Who knew?

Zippy
Reply to  old44
June 15, 2015 6:26 pm

Google isn’t even that great for that, Bing is much better … so I have heard.

June 15, 2015 5:28 pm

Will these sites help cool the planet by
sending intense thermal plumes to the upper reaches of the atmosphere?

simple-touriste
June 15, 2015 5:29 pm

Do you know Themis? Probably not. Few people ever heard or remember this French solar experiment, even in France.
Themis was a molten salt solar plant in the department of Pyrénées-Orientales. Started in 1983, stopped after only 3 years of experimenting (playing with?).
http://idata.over-blog.com/3/02/11/77/foto2/foto3/themis1.jpg
Seriously, it was stopped for a reason. Or many reasons.
One wonders how many lessons of the past are forgotten…?

Editor
Reply to  simple-touriste
June 15, 2015 7:08 pm

I remember reading about it in Science News or SciAm (It was still readable back then.)

PiperPaul
Reply to  simple-touriste
June 15, 2015 7:27 pm

Thanks to the NIH phenomenon, these “mistakes” will keep getting made over and over (and with Other People’s Money, of course).

Robert of Ottawa
June 15, 2015 5:29 pm

It is immoral to burn food in cars or deliberately make energy more expensive,

jeanparisot
June 15, 2015 5:36 pm

I’m sure the coyote’s are doing well. Same as under the wind farms.

Kohn
June 15, 2015 5:44 pm

According to the latest issue of the Economist, Google is second only to GE in lobbying $ spent in DC:
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21654067-unstoppable-rise-lobbying-american-business-bad-business-itself-washington
As the article says, companies like Google spend far more in lobbying related activities that don’t get reported as lobbying.
Looks like they are getting far more than their lobbying money’s worth.

Don Wagner
June 15, 2015 5:49 pm

Somehow, sequestering carbon in the form of charred birds seems counterproductive

Annie
June 15, 2015 6:09 pm

A good article Willis. I can’t laugh though; a wry smile accompanied by just wanting to cry at the incredible, unmitigated sheer stupidity of it all.
This Swansea lagoon thingy; is that another name for the Severn barrier or a separate piece of lunacy?

richardscourtney
Reply to  Annie
June 16, 2015 2:11 am

Annie
No, the Swansea lagoon it is a method to utilise the very high tidal range in the Severn estuary without the environmental damage of a barrage. It is sensible when compared to the genuine lunacy of the existing energy policy in the UK. Of course, if you don’t agree a need for reduced CO2 emissions then fossil fuels are the option of choice.
For a full explanation of these matters, please see this.
Richard

A C Osborn
Reply to  Annie
June 16, 2015 7:46 am
Half tide rock
June 15, 2015 6:40 pm

Soo I say drill baby drill! There is probably gas available below to run the turbines.

KevinK
June 15, 2015 6:51 pm

“Burning birds alive in the name of making energy prices skyrocket? Have we sunk this low? Really?”
YES we have, and it is sickening, I cannot even find a small snicker of laughter in my whole body…..
As an amateur ornithologist (with a “life list” of over 2000 birds observed in the wild on 6 continents) I find this whole debacle repulsive. In my native upstate New York it has taken almost 4 decades to restore the populations of utterly majestic birds like the Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon to something like their previous population levels. And now the “green loons” want to install more bird shredders to undo all that progress, TOTALLY INSANE and OBSCENE….
And all this from a hypothesis (the radiative Greenhouse Effect) that most poorly informed folks have swallowed “hook line and sinker”. And many have defended this hypothesis to no end and called anyone that pointed out that it was just a “hypothesis” with no observational “backup data” the dreaded “D” word, and worse.
Oh and please note Willis that you are one of the folks that have “Defended” the “radiative Greenhouse Effect” for many years…. Once it is conclusively shown that there is no effect on the average temperature of the Earth from “Greenhouse Gases” we will remember that you “Defended” the “effect”.
Cheers, KevinK

pat
June 15, 2015 7:37 pm

ABC Australia’s flagship current affairs prog last nite had “The End of Coal?” – the usual renewables are on the rise etc and, right on cue, today we have:
16 June: ABC: Voters are backing solar power – will we get the policies to match?
A new Lowy poll shows solar power’s appeal is broad among Australians, and it’s clear there is much to be done to reduce emissions. The challenge now is for our governments to act, writes John Connor (CEO, Climate Institute).
Last week I stood in a field of more than a million photovoltaic solar modules and felt like I was touching the future. Erected within 18 months at the Nyngan Solar Farm, this utility scale solar power plant can power more than 50,000 homes. Many more of these can and should be built…
Wind power’s appeal is broad too. Last year polling for The Climate Institute showed 64 per cent of Australians had wind in their top three energy sources. Solar was in the top three of 82 per cent (15 per cent had coal). Indeed, more than three quarters of Australians wanted governments to do more for renewable energy “like wind farms”. With their enigmatic mix of a sleek industrial aesthetic and a primal connection to a natural resource that is also free, wind farms are a crossover technology that inspires many…
Yesterday, the International Energy Agency essentially backed the vision of Australians. Avoiding two degrees warming would see a world with more renewable energy than coal fired energy by 2030…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-16/connor-voters-are-backing-solar-power/6548438
re the same poll:
Australians fear 10 more years of terror, finds I-view poll
The Australian-10 hours ago
Solar energy was rated by 43 per cent as Australia’s likely primary power source in 10 years, followed by coal with just 17 per cent
MSM not so interested in the following report though:
15 June: Reuters: Big Oil saving Putin top investor show again
Some of the world’s most powerful oil executives will attend Russia’s top investment show next week, once again helping the organizers shrug off a meager turnout from other leading Western industrialists and bankers…
However, for the second year running, oil executives are showing up regardless, with the heads of BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total flying into the home town of President Vladimir Putin.
BP’s review of world energy supplies, published this month, estimated that Russian oil and gas reserves had jumped above 100 billion barrels for the first time, climbing to some 103 billion from 93 billion in the last review in 2013. This put it sixth in the global reserves league table.
Such an abundance makes it economically vital for major energy firms to maintain healthy ties with Moscow…
Western energy bosses have a lot at stake in Russia, with assets ranging from Shell’s giant gas plant on the far eastern island of Sakhalin to BP’s 20 percent stake in Rosneft, responsible for a third of its global production…
But onshore developments are still allowed and BP is looking to expand its portfolio in Russia by buying a stake in an east Siberian oil field from Rosneft for as much as $800 million.
Shell’s van Beurden said this month the company would be keen to boost capacity of the $20 billion Sakhalin plant by a third while Total is seeking ways to unlock investments into the $30 billion Yamal gas plant…
Executives from giant oil trading houses Glencore, Vitol, Gunvor and Trafigura will also travel to Russia as Rosneft is looking for ways to boost its funding options via oil sales deals.
Last year, Putin challenged the Western sanctions by striking a long awaited gas supply deal just before the forum between Kremlin’s energy champion Gazprom and China, valued at $400 billion.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-russia-forum-oil-idUSKBN0OU0RW20150615

Catcracking
Reply to  pat
June 15, 2015 8:50 pm

It was not big oil that pushed the reset button with Russia

Patrick
Reply to  pat
June 16, 2015 12:51 am

Highly suspect ABC article. Anything written by the ABC should be ignored. Abbott, the Australiam PM, has been slated by the ABC, and other media outlets, for suggesting wind turbines are “ugly and noisy”. Of course he is correct, but the left leaning Australian media constantly promote “green alternatives” and try to discredit Abbott. Well, we’ll see. 2016 is the next federal election and I predict the Abbott and the LNP will be returned to power.

Gamecock
Reply to  pat
June 16, 2015 1:32 pm

“this utility scale solar power plant can power more than 50,000 homes.”
So they have found 50,000 homes where people do nothing from 5 PM to 10 AM everyday. And nothing all day when it rains. Or is just cloudy. Or has a cloud cover inconsistent with model predictions.

Patrick
Reply to  Gamecock
June 17, 2015 6:03 am

That would be Can…can can’t be bothered with Craiptol!