Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 15, 2014
World’s Largest Solar Plant Comes Online
The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System officially came online on February 13, becoming the world’s largest source of solar power. With a capacity of 392 megawatts, the solar system will be able to generate enough power for 140,000 homes in California. The $2.2 billion Ivanpah project is located in the Mojave Desert and is a joint venture by NRG Energy, Google, and Brightsource Energy. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz toured the plant today with NRG CEO David Crane.
Ivanpah uses concentrated solar power (CSP), which uses hundreds of thousands of mirrors to reflect the sun towards a tower. This heats a boiler in the tower, which creates steam to drive turbines and make electricity.
The project received a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy, helping the project developer, Brightsource Energy, to finance the project. Ivanpah is seen as a milestone for the solar power, as it can consistently generating electricity on a large-scale. It is also a sign of progress for the solar industry, which is rapidly growing and bringing down costs. Although solar power only makes up about 1% of total electricity generation, it now employs 140,000 people, more than the coal industry’s almost 90,000.
Yet future growth in solar will likely not come from CSP technology, which is expensive and requires a lot of land. Ivanpah fought for years with environmentalists concerned about the effect on desert wildlife. Replicating projects on the scale of Ivanpah is probably not likely, particularly in areas with greater densities of people and less sun exposure. Instead, rooftop photovoltaic solar power may be the preferred technology, generating solar on site without the need for long distance transmission. Costs for rooftop solar are rapidly declining, and will likely grow exponentially in the coming years. However, the speed at which solar expands will depend on incentives from Congress, many of which are set to expire in 2016.
As WaPo goes on to note,
Ivanpah can be seen as a success story and a cautionary tale, highlighting the inevitable trade-offs between the need for cleaner power and the loss of fragile, open land. The California Energy Commission concluded that while the solar plant would impose “significant impacts on the environment … the benefits the project would provide override those impacts.”
Such disputes are likely to continue for years as more companies seek to develop solar, wind and geothermal plants on land treasured by environmentalists who also support the growth of renewable energy. At issue is what is worth preserving and at what cost, as California pushes to generate more electricity from renewable sources.
…
Government documents show dozens of dead birds from sparrows to hawks have been found on the site, some with melted feathers. The suspected causes of death include collisions with mirrors and scorching. In November alone, 11 dead birds were found, including two, a blackbird and a warbler, with singed feathers.
The Western Watersheds Project is continuing to push a lawsuit against federal agencies that reviewed the Ivanpah project.
…
According to statistics compiled by the Energy Department, the solar industry employs more than 140,000 Americans at about 6,100 companies, with employment increasing nearly 20 percent since the fall of 2012.
29 Comments on "World’s Largest Solar Plant Comes Online"
Arthur on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 5:35 pm
Good!
Northwest Resident on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 6:13 pm
I’m an avid environmentalist, but from my point of view, they can turn the whole Mohave desert into one big solar collection system and it wouldn’t bother me, as long as we could get a good return in sustainable energy out of that effort. The life forms that have adapted to scratch out a living in the hot dry desert are amazing, but they are not as vital to the overall world ecological health as are other species living in other environments. I know that is cold and ruthless, but it is true. I would trade a bunch of dead birds, snakes, lizards and scorpions in the desert any day for the opportunity to leave forests standing, fresh and salt waters unpolluted, mountaintops un-removed and sensitive arctic environments with all their wildlife untouched. But that’s just me. Now, if only hawks, blackbirds, warblers and sparrows were good to eat, then it wouldn’t be a total loss, would it?
J-Gav on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 6:29 pm
I’m also an environmentalist but here, well, we’ll see … $2.2 billion for a set-up that wouldn’t even provide electricity for a city like Des Moines, Iowa. Not against solar but I’d stay on the look-out for some hidden costs in massive projects like these.
andya on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 6:55 pm
“Although solar power only makes up about 1% of total electricity generation, it now employs 140,000 people, more than the coal industry’s almost 90,000.”
Well that sounds like solar must be way cheaper then coal.
“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”
This is just a boondoogle for the team to cheer about, even though the facts don’t match the rhetoric. Why did they even build this? Is this the best way to waste money?
MSN fanboy on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 7:28 pm
Arthur 10 points A*… everyone else… U for FAILURE.
baptised on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 8:27 pm
Wildlife will enjoy the shade of the mirrors.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 10:48 pm
Help Wanted. glass and mirror cleaning services needed. Must work nights. No phobias to scorpions, snakes, and lizards.
tahoe1780 on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 11:17 pm
Not a drop of liquid fuel produced and a warranty period of ??? What’s the EROEI on the fossil fuel embedded? What Andya said.
sunweb on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 11:19 pm
Have share this before, wishful thinking for BAU does not make it viable.
A new scientific study shows it takes years to payback the energy used in solar electric devices. EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) says it takes energy – mining, drilling, refining, transporting, installing, maintenance, and replacement parts – to make the devices necessary to capture solar energy.
Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment by Prieto, Pedro A., Hall, Charles 2013.
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-1-4419-9436-3
and http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
“This book presents the first complete energy analysis of a large-scale, real-world deployment of photovoltaic (PV) collection systems representing 3.5 GW of installed, grid-connected solar plants in Spain. Prieto and Hall conclude that the EROI of solar photovoltaic is only 2.45, very low despite Spain’s ideal sunny climate. Germany’s EROI is probably 20 to 33% less (1.6 to 2), due to less sunlight and efficient rooftop installations.”
“Solar advocates can learn from this analysis . . . “ Not looking at the reality of EROI “is not good science and leads to wasted money and energy that could have been better spent preparing more wisely for declining fossil fuels in the future.”
This study does not detail the environmentally destructive mining, toxic chemicals or air and water pollution necessary to get the materials for manufacturing and installing solar devices. The sun is there, is green, is sustained – not the so-called renewable devices.
Sometimes the truth doesn’t set you free; it simply creates denial for short-term fun or profit.
Invest in solar now while we still have the fossil fuels from fracking, deep water drilling, Canadian tar sands and mountain top removal for coal. Then we can have the massive trucks, large refineries, huge manufacturing facilities for glass, aluminum, copper, and photovoltaic cells that are necessary for these high tech, temporary solutions. Don’t let true science or concern about the earth’s future stand in your way.
sunweb on Sat, 15th Feb 2014 11:52 pm
This one assessment of the EROI. It is an editorial I sent to my newspaper
A new scientific study shows it takes years to payback the energy used in solar electric devices. EROI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) says it takes energy – mining, drilling, refining, transporting, installing, maintenance, and replacement parts – to make the devices necessary to capture solar energy.
Spain’s Photovoltaic Revolution: The Energy Return on Investment by Prieto, Pedro A., Hall, Charles 2013.
http://www.springer.com/energy/renewable+and+green+energy/book/978-1-4419-9436-3
and http://energyskeptic.com/2013/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
“This book presents the first complete energy analysis of a large-scale, real-world deployment of photovoltaic (PV) collection systems representing 3.5 GW of installed, grid-connected solar plants in Spain. Prieto and Hall conclude that the EROI of solar photovoltaic is only 2.45, very low despite Spain’s ideal sunny climate. Germany’s EROI is probably 20 to 33% less (1.6 to 2), due to less sunlight and efficient rooftop installations.”
“Solar advocates can learn from this analysis . . . “ Not looking at the reality of EROI “is not good science and leads to wasted money and energy that could have been better spent preparing more wisely for declining fossil fuels in the future.”
This study does not detail the environmentally destructive mining, toxic chemicals or air and water pollution necessary to get the materials for manufacturing and installing solar devices. The sun is there, is green, is sustained – not the so-called renewable devices.
Sometimes the truth doesn’t set you free; it simply creates denial for short-term fun or profit.
Invest in solar now while we still have the fossil fuels from fracking, deep water drilling, Canadian tar sands and mountain top removal for coal. Then we can have the massive trucks, large refineries, huge manufacturing facilities for glass, aluminum, copper, and photovoltaic cells that are necessary for these high tech, temporary solutions. Don’t let true science or concern about the earth’s future stand in your way.
Norm on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 12:41 am
Cooked birds = lunch for the work crews.
Northwest Resident on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 12:48 am
Norm — Pass the ketchup.
Makati1 on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 2:08 am
Pro solar? Did you notice the $1,600,000,000.00 TAXPAYER subsidy? Meaning that you paid $12,000 per home for those 140,000 homes to have electric. And they did not even mention how much that solar electric was going to cost the homeowners per month forever.
Well 140,000 home down and only 99,860,000 to go! At $12K each that is only another $1,198,320,000,000.00 to go! Then, there is all the industrial electric needed, a much higher level and commercial and …. More dreams of the techie religion.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 2:13 am
Makati, that is a loan not a gift. It will be a gift if it fails
Meld on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 10:16 am
Well that’s an awful lot of money to boil water to power 140,000 homes during the day when nobody is home. GOOD WORK!
Makati1 on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 11:09 am
Davy, it will fail. You never get back government ‘loans’. And this is exactly why solar will never amount to much. The average Joe cannot afford it without taxpayer money.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 12:31 pm
@Makati – I would agree but with a caveat never get it all back. It turns out to be a disguised subsidy gift from the taxpayer. But like taxes the government knows it can get money if it is there to get.
@meld – no Sh*t on the suburban practices of being gone with tv running, lights on, and 1000 other stupidities. Lots of low hanging fruit to pick though when behavior needs to change. How long until home economics comes back to the classrooms of the US?
@sunweb – Murphy on TOD did some very good studies early on in the gold rush of optimism on renewables that became part of his energy trap thesis. I agree with your interpretation. Yet with caveats, for example Europeans use electricity efficiently and make up for the low EROI relative to a maybe efficient wind or solar site in the US with the corresponding suburban inefficiencies. Remember Bush 1 and his speech – “keep America moving forward, always forward—for a better America, for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light.” Well I like to adapt that to decent mitigation, adaptation, and adjustments slogan. This predicament will have no silver bullet nor a six shooter. The predicament will require a thousand ideas like a Chinese buffet here in America. Renewables have a place. The economic, knowledge, and manufacturing infrastructure are there. If a location has comparative advantage use that advantage, try to stay local, slow tech, and resilient when possible.
Arthur on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 12:34 pm
sunweb, that Spain story has been posted here regularly, but is debunked here:
http://peakoil.com/alternative-energy/cost-of-pv-cells-has-dropped-99-since-1977-bringing-solar-energy-to-grid-parity
and here:
peakoil . com/alternative-energy/solar-dreams-spanish-realities
Kenz300 on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 4:03 pm
Wind, solar wave energy, geothermal and second generation biofuels made from algae, cellulose and waste are the future.
The price of oil, coal and nuclear keep rising and causing environmental damage.
The price of wind and solar have dropped by over 50% in the last 5 years and continues to fall…….
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 16th Feb 2014 4:08 pm
@Kenz300 – lets get the banjo out, some moonshine and dance cause that’s what it sounds like when you offer solutions to the future. Awesomeness!!! But the hangover will be there in the morning
rollin on Mon, 17th Feb 2014 2:20 am
Mataki doesn’t seem to understand English. It’s a lone guarantee, not a loan. Only gets covered on default.
Personally I like PV better, but concentrated sunlight systems are more efficient and are easier to adapt to power storage.
And as far as costs go, if natural gas or coal users and producers had to pay for external costs they would be ten times higher cost at a minimum. So as long as the energy suppliers/burners don’t take responsibility for the disaster they are creating, it looks cheap on the books.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 17th Feb 2014 2:37 am
@rollin – often overlooked in the total lifecycle cost is the hidden systematic costs of pollution, military protection, and AGW. It would be interesting but messy to assign a standard cost factor to the eroi of all fossil fuel projects for these hidden cost. It takes energy to deal with pollution. We know DOD is one of the biggest users of fuel in the world on par with countries. Not all of the DOD effort is directed to oil supply safety (or) some would say here “conquest”, but it is a primary mission. It will be very hard to assign a value for AGW. AGW is in a whole different dimension.
Arthur on Mon, 17th Feb 2014 3:41 pm
rollin, I too think that in the end of the day, static solid state PV will outperform the setup implemented here, which involves moving mirrors, high temperatures, steam, turbines, high towers, etc. PV panels are simple and require low maintenance and are getting cheaper with every passing year. Nevertheless, nothing against a few thermal pilot projects like in Ivanpah and similar projects elsewhere, like in Spain.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Mon, 17th Feb 2014 3:58 pm
@arthur – I agree with PV panels especially if we can change behaviors. Panels have disadvantages when they are expected to replace grid power in a home. I feel PV panels should be called on to cover separate low power systems. I find duel systems in the home attractive. This is what I have. The grid power for the energy hogging large appliances. If panels are called upon to replace grid power the complexity and cost is questionable. We also see widespread issues with the grid operator’s roi on their huge sunk cost in thermo generation. As a society we have a large investment in these grids. We depend upon a healthy grid. Renewable switching if not done in a financially responsible way will have unintended negative consequences. If you put financial pressure on our all-important electrical supply we may wake up one day and the lights will not go on. Maybe they will go on later in the day but a functioning modern economy does not operate that way. We need to change behaviors by energy education. Tweaking usage at the consumer level is the real “smart grid” in my mind not the high tech gadgets. Ultimately we need to transition away from these energy hogging gadgets. In the meantime we need to better manage their use. I realize trying to get consumers to do anything other than spend money is difficult. Yet, in cases of water stress we see behavioral changes. Nothing gets people’s attention better than going without.
rollin on Mon, 17th Feb 2014 11:05 pm
I have a large pumped hydro power system just a few miles from me and a hydro dam. When we go local, storage and fill in power will not be a problem.
Loki on Tue, 18th Feb 2014 1:27 am
Northwest Resident, you might want to reconsider your “environmentalist” self-appelation. No environmentalist would be willing to sacrifice an entire ecoregion. I grew up in the Sonoran Desert, another ecoregion often offered for sacrifice in the name of Big Green Energy. Beautiful ecosystem, masses of wildlife and endemic plants. It would be an abomination to destroy it, particularly to power LA’s big screen TVs and Las Vegas’s neon signs.
Speaking of abominations, this big CSP plant looks like one to me. In addition to the large footprint of the site in what looks to be previously undeveloped desert, I bet they also had to punch miles of roads and transmission lines through similarly undeveloped land.
I would much prefer decentralized solar power systems in already developed areas. Also not without it’s ecological footprint, but at least we wouldn’t need to pave over some of the last undeveloped land in the Lower 48.
Loki on Tue, 18th Feb 2014 1:45 am
Population growth wiped out any gains made from this plant in less time than it took to build it. California’s population grew by 332,000 between July 2012 and July 2013 (driven almost entirely by immigration). Avg household size in CA is 2.89. That means an additional 115,000 households per year.
The developers of this plant claim it will produce enough power for 140,000 homes. That covers 1.2 years of population growth.
So all California has to do is build one of these plants every 1.2 years and they’ll be able to say they’re successfully treading water.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Tue, 18th Feb 2014 2:15 am
@Loki – I would much prefer decentralized solar power systems in already developed areas
Loki, I tend to agree. For your reason of disturbing open space and the resilience of the decentralized power. Yet, I have been preaching here whatever we can get built in the next few years is worthwhile. I don’t think we have over a few years before we have a significant contraction that will put a stop to any big projects.
Arthur on Tue, 18th Feb 2014 7:18 am
Agree with Loki, first solar panels on every roof, before these large scale projects are undertaken.
a significant contraction that will put a stop to any big projects.
Wait for the return of socialism. If you pay a worker 600$/month, there is no end to the number of big projects you can do. The dirt poor thirties were full with (New Deal, Bolshevik, National Socialist) big projects.