Strong Solar Power Panels igniting Birds. Stupid Global Warmer losers.

[westwall]

Ivanpah is producing electricity from solar energy. Ivanpah works.

Ivanpah is producing electricity from solar energy. Ivanpah works.

Sooooo, are you just incredibly stupid or are you a paid propagandist? Hmmmm? Ivanpah is NOT producing. In fact it is in danger of having the plug pulled.


Ivanpah Solar Project Faces Risk of Default on PG&E Contracts

"Energy production has picked up at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert, but not enough to allow the plant’s owners — who include Google and Oakland-based BrightSource Energy — to avoid the risk of defaulting on their contracts to deliver electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric.

Majority owner and plant manager NRG Energy said in its most recent quarterly report that it won’t be able to deliver the electricity promised in its power purchase agreements with PG&E. The agreements cover output from two of Ivanpah’s three units."


Ivanpah Solar Project Faces Risk of Default on PG&E Contracts | The California Report | KQED News

 

[elektra]

In an older story, we see Ivanpah has failed as a Solar Plant, hence the recent increase in the use of Natural Gas by this solar plant.

High-Tech Solar Projects Fail to Deliver

High-Tech Solar Projects Fail to Deliver
$2.2 billion California project generates 40% of expected electricity

 

[Crick]

Bullshit
Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015
The Wall Street Journal has returned attention to the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the $2.2 billion Department of Energy-backed concentrating solar power plant whose slow start became the subject of some controversy after a Breaking Energy story last fall.

The Journal reported that “15 months after starting up, the California plant is producing just 40 percent” of the electricity it was expected to generate. The paper said Ivanpah’s operator, NRG, expects the plant to “reach power targets once the kinks are worked out,” but surprisingly didn’t check that claim against the latest data: In the first quarter of this year, Ivanpah generation was up 170 percent over the same quarter in 2014 – 108 gigawatt-hours compared to 40 GWh, according to the Energy Information Administration.



Jennifer Z. Rigney, spokeswoman for Ivanpah’s technology provider, BrightSource Energy, passed along a statement from NRG that said the upward trend continued in April, although the company did not give a precise figure for the month (EIA data for April is not yet available).

“As we expected, our operating crew’s expertise with the technology is increasing all the time and the plant is continuing to increase its generation,” the statement read. “In March, Ivanpah produced the second most power it has ever done in a single month. April exceeded that level of generation within just the first two-thirds of the month and ultimately set a new record for power generated in a single month.”

We reported in January (“Ivanpah Solar Plant Picking Up Steam”) that it’s possible that Ivanpah’s performance has also been aided by an allowance to use more natural gas – 60 percent more than originally planned – which gives the plant a boost in starting up in the morning and avoiding losing steam through brief cloudy periods.

In recommending approval of the request to be allowed to use more natural gas, which was granted in August, a California Energy Commission staff analysis concluded that the emissions impact would be small and that requirements that “define the allowable amount of natural gas that can be used at a qualifying renewable facility … are sufficient to ensure that the proposed facility would continue to qualify as a renewable facility.”

Information recently obtained from the CEC for calendar year 2014 seems to show natural gas usage at Ivanpah actually trended down after the request was approved. Meanwhile, the amount of energy produced per unit of natural gas used increased. For instance, in March the plant used 50,536 MMBtu of gas and produced 19,954 MWh of electricity, while in October it used 43,094 MMBtu of gas and produced 56,013 MWh of electricity.



The CEC hasn’t published data on the plant’s natural gas usage in the first quarter of this year, and NRG did not respond to requests for that information.

Ivanpah produces energy by bouncing sunlight to the top of 450-foot-tall towers, where water is heated to create steam that drives turbines.

Its performance is being closely watched because power towers are seen as the best bet for concentrating solar power. Although the technology has been hammered by cheap, increasingly productive photovoltaics in the past five years (and has run into environmental issues), its advocates hold out hope that its compatibility with energy storage could make it a winner. Ivanpah wasn’t built with storage, but SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes plant was. After seemingly endless delays, that plant, in Nevada, supposedly will come online this summer.

BrightSource and NRG, while admitting the plant has had its share of hiccups, have disputed the notion that Ivanpah is falling well short of expected generation, saying that all along they knew it would take up to four years to hit full stride. That claim had seemed a bit dodgy, seemingly coming only after the poor early start was exposed. But in fact the claim is backed up by assertions found in a 2011 federal filing by BrightSource:

As with any plant representing new and innovative technology, there will be an initial shake-out and ramp-up period when the plant is placed into operation. As such, initial performance will be less than full design; however, over time, plant performance will increase towards designed full-rated annual performance (referred to as mature-year performance). This increase is caused by the realization of the operator’s learning curve, procedural optimization, and fine-tuning of equipment and systems for increased plant performance. For the Ivanpah project, BrightSource Energy, Inc. (BSE) has proposed that this ramp-up process may last up to four years.

That said, there are also signs that the first-year performance of the plant was below the levels anticipated in power purchase agreements with the two California utilities buying Ivanpah’s output.

Full PPA details are confidential, but according to state regulatory filings, Pacific Gas & Electric contracted to receive 304 GWh/year from Ivanpah 1 and 336 GWh from Ivanpah 3. Southern California Edison expected 336 GWh from Unit 2.

SEC filings by BrightSource allude to “minimum production standards” in the contracts – 70 percent of the “power expected,” on average, in the first two years of operation, rising to 80 percent at the end of year three and thereafter.

The units declared commercial operations under the power purchase agreements at varying times, on January 10, 2014 for Unit 1, January 31, 2014 for Unit 2, and January 15, 2014 for Unit 3.


Ivanpah’s three units began operating at varying times in January 2014.

According to the EIA, Ivanpah 1 and 3 together produced about 290 GWh by the end of 2014, just a few weeks shy of a full year of operation, equivalent to 45 percent of the annual PG&E contract quantity. To hit 70 percent (895 GWh) for the first two-year measuring period, it appears the units combined will need to generate about 605 GWh this year, or nearly 95 percent of the single-year contract quantity. Ivanpah 2 fared poorer in its first full year, producing 134 GWh (40 percent of the annual contract quantity). That means the unit would have to produce 336 GWh – 100 percent of the single-year target – to meet the contract minimums noted to in the SEC filings.

Mind you, these are broad-stroke calculations and it’s quite likely the power purchase agreements include adjustment mechanisms that take into account the many potential complicating factors in producing and delivering energy. We sent questions to NRG asking about the plant’s performance against its contractual obligations, but never heard back.

Editor’s note: This story was updated shortly after its original publication to add more detail about natural gas usage at the Ivanpah plant.

• Topics: BrightSource Energy, Concentrated Solar, Concentrated Solar Power, DOE, DOE Loan Program, Ivanpah, NRG Energy, Renewable Energy, Solar Power

 

[elektra]

Bullshit
Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015
The Wall Street Journal has returned attention to the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the $2.2 billion Department of Energy-backed concentrating solar power plant whose slow start became the subject of some controversy after a Breaking Energy story last fall.

The Journal reported that “15 months after starting up, the California plant is producing just 40 percent” of the electricity it was expected to generate. The paper said Ivanpah’s operator, NRG, expects the plant to “reach power targets once the kinks are worked out,” but surprisingly didn’t check that claim against the latest data: In the first quarter of this year, Ivanpah generation was up 170 percent over the same quarter in 2014 – 108 gigawatt-hours compared to 40 GWh, according to the Energy Information Administration.



Jennifer Z. Rigney, spokeswoman for Ivanpah’s technology provider, BrightSource Energy, passed along a statement from NRG that said the upward trend continued in April, although the company did not give a precise figure for the month (EIA data for April is not yet available).

“As we expected, our operating crew’s expertise with the technology is increasing all the time and the plant is continuing to increase its generation,” the statement read. “In March, Ivanpah produced the second most power it has ever done in a single month. April exceeded that level of generation within just the first two-thirds of the month and ultimately set a new record for power generated in a single month.”

We reported in January (“Ivanpah Solar Plant Picking Up Steam”) that it’s possible that Ivanpah’s performance has also been aided by an allowance to use more natural gas – 60 percent more than originally planned – which gives the plant a boost in starting up in the morning and avoiding losing steam through brief cloudy periods.

In recommending approval of the request to be allowed to use more natural gas, which was granted in August, a California Energy Commission staff analysis concluded that the emissions impact would be small and that requirements that “define the allowable amount of natural gas that can be used at a qualifying renewable facility … are sufficient to ensure that the proposed facility would continue to qualify as a renewable facility.”

Information recently obtained from the CEC for calendar year 2014 seems to show natural gas usage at Ivanpah actually trended down after the request was approved. Meanwhile, the amount of energy produced per unit of natural gas used increased. For instance, in March the plant used 50,536 MMBtu of gas and produced 19,954 MWh of electricity, while in October it used 43,094 MMBtu of gas and produced 56,013 MWh of electricity.



The CEC hasn’t published data on the plant’s natural gas usage in the first quarter of this year, and NRG did not respond to requests for that information.

Ivanpah produces energy by bouncing sunlight to the top of 450-foot-tall towers, where water is heated to create steam that drives turbines.

Its performance is being closely watched because power towers are seen as the best bet for concentrating solar power. Although the technology has been hammered by cheap, increasingly productive photovoltaics in the past five years (and has run into environmental issues), its advocates hold out hope that its compatibility with energy storage could make it a winner. Ivanpah wasn’t built with storage, but SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes plant was. After seemingly endless delays, that plant, in Nevada, supposedly will come online this summer.

BrightSource and NRG, while admitting the plant has had its share of hiccups, have disputed the notion that Ivanpah is falling well short of expected generation, saying that all along they knew it would take up to four years to hit full stride. That claim had seemed a bit dodgy, seemingly coming only after the poor early start was exposed. But in fact the claim is backed up by assertions found in a 2011 federal filing by BrightSource:

As with any plant representing new and innovative technology, there will be an initial shake-out and ramp-up period when the plant is placed into operation. As such, initial performance will be less than full design; however, over time, plant performance will increase towards designed full-rated annual performance (referred to as mature-year performance). This increase is caused by the realization of the operator’s learning curve, procedural optimization, and fine-tuning of equipment and systems for increased plant performance. For the Ivanpah project, BrightSource Energy, Inc. (BSE) has proposed that this ramp-up process may last up to four years.

That said, there are also signs that the first-year performance of the plant was below the levels anticipated in power purchase agreements with the two California utilities buying Ivanpah’s output.

Full PPA details are confidential, but according to state regulatory filings, Pacific Gas & Electric contracted to receive 304 GWh/year from Ivanpah 1 and 336 GWh from Ivanpah 3. Southern California Edison expected 336 GWh from Unit 2.

SEC filings by BrightSource allude to “minimum production standards” in the contracts – 70 percent of the “power expected,” on average, in the first two years of operation, rising to 80 percent at the end of year three and thereafter.

The units declared commercial operations under the power purchase agreements at varying times, on January 10, 2014 for Unit 1, January 31, 2014 for Unit 2, and January 15, 2014 for Unit 3.


Ivanpah’s three units began operating at varying times in January 2014.

According to the EIA, Ivanpah 1 and 3 together produced about 290 GWh by the end of 2014, just a few weeks shy of a full year of operation, equivalent to 45 percent of the annual PG&E contract quantity. To hit 70 percent (895 GWh) for the first two-year measuring period, it appears the units combined will need to generate about 605 GWh this year, or nearly 95 percent of the single-year contract quantity. Ivanpah 2 fared poorer in its first full year, producing 134 GWh (40 percent of the annual contract quantity). That means the unit would have to produce 336 GWh – 100 percent of the single-year target – to meet the contract minimums noted to in the SEC filings.

Mind you, these are broad-stroke calculations and it’s quite likely the power purchase agreements include adjustment mechanisms that take into account the many potential complicating factors in producing and delivering energy. We sent questions to NRG asking about the plant’s performance against its contractual obligations, but never heard back.

Editor’s note: This story was updated shortly after its original publication to add more detail about natural gas usage at the Ivanpah plant.

• Topics: BrightSource Energy, Concentrated Solar, Concentrated Solar Power, DOE, DOE Loan Program, Ivanpah, NRG Energy, Renewable Energy, Solar Power

I addressed this, this is the increase from using natural gas, that is why I provided the older WSJ story, to show this Solar Power plants increase in production as a result of using natural gas instead of the sun

.Ivanpah CO2 Emissions: More Than 10 Times Solar PV – Pete Danko

Natural gas consumption at Ivanpah, the controversial power plant in the California desert, increased 62 percent in its second full year of operation, and the plant emitted the equivalent of about 229 pounds of carbon dioxide for each megawatt hour of electricity it generated.

 

[Crick]

Why you provided the older WSJ story? There IS NO newer WSJ story. Being the WSJ, they never followed up because it would have spoiled their narrative. It's generally why you don't go to the WSJ for anything unless you're looking for the Fox News outlook without having to attribute your byline to Fox News.

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, the death ray machines kill eagles.

Eagles are commonly regarded as a symbol of a strong America.

Now you know why liberals love the solar arrays!

 

[westwall]

Bullshit
Ivanpah Solar Production Up 170% in 2015
The Wall Street Journal has returned attention to the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, the $2.2 billion Department of Energy-backed concentrating solar power plant whose slow start became the subject of some controversy after a Breaking Energy story last fall.

The Journal reported that “15 months after starting up, the California plant is producing just 40 percent” of the electricity it was expected to generate. The paper said Ivanpah’s operator, NRG, expects the plant to “reach power targets once the kinks are worked out,” but surprisingly didn’t check that claim against the latest data: In the first quarter of this year, Ivanpah generation was up 170 percent over the same quarter in 2014 – 108 gigawatt-hours compared to 40 GWh, according to the Energy Information Administration.



Jennifer Z. Rigney, spokeswoman for Ivanpah’s technology provider, BrightSource Energy, passed along a statement from NRG that said the upward trend continued in April, although the company did not give a precise figure for the month (EIA data for April is not yet available).

“As we expected, our operating crew’s expertise with the technology is increasing all the time and the plant is continuing to increase its generation,” the statement read. “In March, Ivanpah produced the second most power it has ever done in a single month. April exceeded that level of generation within just the first two-thirds of the month and ultimately set a new record for power generated in a single month.”

We reported in January (“Ivanpah Solar Plant Picking Up Steam”) that it’s possible that Ivanpah’s performance has also been aided by an allowance to use more natural gas – 60 percent more than originally planned – which gives the plant a boost in starting up in the morning and avoiding losing steam through brief cloudy periods.

In recommending approval of the request to be allowed to use more natural gas, which was granted in August, a California Energy Commission staff analysis concluded that the emissions impact would be small and that requirements that “define the allowable amount of natural gas that can be used at a qualifying renewable facility … are sufficient to ensure that the proposed facility would continue to qualify as a renewable facility.”

Information recently obtained from the CEC for calendar year 2014 seems to show natural gas usage at Ivanpah actually trended down after the request was approved. Meanwhile, the amount of energy produced per unit of natural gas used increased. For instance, in March the plant used 50,536 MMBtu of gas and produced 19,954 MWh of electricity, while in October it used 43,094 MMBtu of gas and produced 56,013 MWh of electricity.



The CEC hasn’t published data on the plant’s natural gas usage in the first quarter of this year, and NRG did not respond to requests for that information.

Ivanpah produces energy by bouncing sunlight to the top of 450-foot-tall towers, where water is heated to create steam that drives turbines.

Its performance is being closely watched because power towers are seen as the best bet for concentrating solar power. Although the technology has been hammered by cheap, increasingly productive photovoltaics in the past five years (and has run into environmental issues), its advocates hold out hope that its compatibility with energy storage could make it a winner. Ivanpah wasn’t built with storage, but SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes plant was. After seemingly endless delays, that plant, in Nevada, supposedly will come online this summer.

BrightSource and NRG, while admitting the plant has had its share of hiccups, have disputed the notion that Ivanpah is falling well short of expected generation, saying that all along they knew it would take up to four years to hit full stride. That claim had seemed a bit dodgy, seemingly coming only after the poor early start was exposed. But in fact the claim is backed up by assertions found in a 2011 federal filing by BrightSource:

As with any plant representing new and innovative technology, there will be an initial shake-out and ramp-up period when the plant is placed into operation. As such, initial performance will be less than full design; however, over time, plant performance will increase towards designed full-rated annual performance (referred to as mature-year performance). This increase is caused by the realization of the operator’s learning curve, procedural optimization, and fine-tuning of equipment and systems for increased plant performance. For the Ivanpah project, BrightSource Energy, Inc. (BSE) has proposed that this ramp-up process may last up to four years.

That said, there are also signs that the first-year performance of the plant was below the levels anticipated in power purchase agreements with the two California utilities buying Ivanpah’s output.

Full PPA details are confidential, but according to state regulatory filings, Pacific Gas & Electric contracted to receive 304 GWh/year from Ivanpah 1 and 336 GWh from Ivanpah 3. Southern California Edison expected 336 GWh from Unit 2.

SEC filings by BrightSource allude to “minimum production standards” in the contracts – 70 percent of the “power expected,” on average, in the first two years of operation, rising to 80 percent at the end of year three and thereafter.

The units declared commercial operations under the power purchase agreements at varying times, on January 10, 2014 for Unit 1, January 31, 2014 for Unit 2, and January 15, 2014 for Unit 3.


Ivanpah’s three units began operating at varying times in January 2014.

According to the EIA, Ivanpah 1 and 3 together produced about 290 GWh by the end of 2014, just a few weeks shy of a full year of operation, equivalent to 45 percent of the annual PG&E contract quantity. To hit 70 percent (895 GWh) for the first two-year measuring period, it appears the units combined will need to generate about 605 GWh this year, or nearly 95 percent of the single-year contract quantity. Ivanpah 2 fared poorer in its first full year, producing 134 GWh (40 percent of the annual contract quantity). That means the unit would have to produce 336 GWh – 100 percent of the single-year target – to meet the contract minimums noted to in the SEC filings.

Mind you, these are broad-stroke calculations and it’s quite likely the power purchase agreements include adjustment mechanisms that take into account the many potential complicating factors in producing and delivering energy. We sent questions to NRG asking about the plant’s performance against its contractual obligations, but never heard back.

Editor’s note: This story was updated shortly after its original publication to add more detail about natural gas usage at the Ivanpah plant.

• Topics: BrightSource Energy, Concentrated Solar, Concentrated Solar Power, DOE, DOE Loan Program, Ivanpah, NRG Energy, Renewable Energy, Solar Power

Ummm, that's due to NATURAL GAS moron!

 

[elektra]

Why you provided the older WSJ story? There IS NO newer WSJ story. It's generally why you don't go to the WSJ for anything unless you're looking for the Fox News outlook without having to attribute your byline to Fox News.

I gave 4 links, one to WSJ. if the WSJ is wrong why is ivanpah burning as much natural gas as the equuvalent size natural gas power plant,?

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas | Arizona Daily Independent

 

[Crick]

Because they are not. Because WSJ never followed up and published Ivanpah's improving numbers or the fact that Ivanpah's developers had expected it to take this long to get production up to design specs before the plant ever opened. Ivanpah's gas consumption has gone down as their solar output has climbed.

 

[westwall]

Because they are not. Because WSJ never followed up and published Ivanpah's improving numbers or the fact that Ivanpah's developers had expected it to take this long to get production up to design specs before the plant ever opened. Ivanpah's gas consumption has gone down as their solar output has climbed.

oh, poor crickey. It's hard to pass off your lies when the information is so readily available......


"CSP plants were promoted by the Department of Energy from the time DOE was created under President Carter. Several were built over the decades and none performed adequately. One burned up in 1986 and was rebuilt, enlarged, DOE arguing that the plants have to be big to take advantage of economy of scale.

Following that logic, this latest 392 MW (name-plate) giant was built on 13 km2 of land in Mojave Desert at a cost of 2.2 billion dollars. It generated a disappointing .4 billion kWh thus producing at an average rate of 46 MW the first year.

[Note: It is typical for renewable energy projects to show different units for input, rated output and actual output. This practice makes performance and efficiency comparisons cumbersome, and is therefore not pursued, allowing misinformation to flourish. In the above paragraph, the former value is in “W” but the latter in “Wh.” The author wishes that such reporting use the same unit (W, as with the 392 MW and 46 MW above) or it states, as an example, “…. the plant has been producing 12 % of its name-plate power.”]"

Central Station Solar: Ivanpah Fail ($2.2 billion bust) - Master Resource

 

[Theowl32]

Why you provided the older WSJ story? There IS NO newer WSJ story. It's generally why you don't go to the WSJ for anything unless you're looking for the Fox News outlook without having to attribute your byline to Fox News.

I gave 4 links, one to WSJ. if the WSJ is wrong why is ivanpah burning as much natural gas as the equuvalent size natural gas power plant,?

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas | Arizona Daily Independent

Ever hear of the myth of sysiphus?

You are wasting your time trying to be logical with the left wing squishpot.

He will never get it. Ever.

 

[westwall]

Why you provided the older WSJ story? There IS NO newer WSJ story. It's generally why you don't go to the WSJ for anything unless you're looking for the Fox News outlook without having to attribute your byline to Fox News.

I gave 4 links, one to WSJ. if the WSJ is wrong why is ivanpah burning as much natural gas as the equuvalent size natural gas power plant,?

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas | Arizona Daily Independent

Ever hear of the myth of sysiphus?

You are wasting your time trying to be logical with the left wing squishpot.

Propagandists (which crickey is) don't care what the evidence is. They are pushing a agenda.

 

[Theowl32]

Why you provided the older WSJ story? There IS NO newer WSJ story. It's generally why you don't go to the WSJ for anything unless you're looking for the Fox News outlook without having to attribute your byline to Fox News.

I gave 4 links, one to WSJ. if the WSJ is wrong why is ivanpah burning as much natural gas as the equuvalent size natural gas power plant,?

Ivanpah solar plant wants to burn more natural gas | Arizona Daily Independent

Ever hear of the myth of sysiphus?

You are wasting your time trying to be logical with the left wing squishpot.

Propagandists (which crickey is) don't care what the evidence is. They are pushing a agenda.

He is passing along the propaganda, but he is not smart enough to be a propagandist. Meaning, he is a brainwashed stooge for the socialists who use ALL of their propaganda to push their socialist agenda.

He is a mere pawn, which is what most of them are.

 

[mamooth]

Let me show the deniers how to find and analyze data:

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2015 Power produced -- 1,071 GW*H

2015 Natgas burned -- 1.34 million mcf

According to How much coal, natural gas, or petroleum is used to generate a kilowatthour of electricity? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), a natgas plant typically generate 99kWH per mcf.

So, 1.34 million * 99KW*H = 133 GW*H.

1071 is bigger than 133.

Hence, Ivanpah is putting out about 8 times as much power than could come from the natgas it burns. It is very obviously generating gobs of power from solar energy.

However, it's putting out less than designed for and advertised, so it's not succeeding economically.

Deniers, of course, couldn't be bothered to run the numbers. Screeching what they were told to screech was the limit of their analytical ability.

 

[westwall]

Let me show the deniers how to find and analyze data:

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2015 Power produced -- 1,071 GW*H

2015 Natgas burned -- 1.34 million mcf

According to How much coal, natural gas, or petroleum is used to generate a kilowatthour of electricity? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), a natgas plant typically generate 99kWH per mcf.

So, 1.34 million * 99KW*H = 133 GW*H.

1071 is bigger than 133.

Hence, Ivanpah is putting out about 8 times as much power than could come from the natgas it burns. It is very obviously generating gobs of power from solar energy.

However, it's putting out less than designed for and advertised, so it's not succeeding economically.

Deniers, of course, couldn't be bothered to run the numbers. Screeching what they were told to screech was the limit of their analytical ability.

We have already given you the links to the ACTUAL reports from Ivanpah and from the State regulating agencies that prove your wiki bullshit to be...well, bullshit. Try again.

 

[elektra]

Burning 6 hours of natural gas, is simply operating Ivanpah on natural gas.

Ivanpah is only designed to operate 8 hours, maybe less? 3/4 of the power is gas, and now Ivanpah can not be classified as a solar plant, it is simply a huge in physical size natural gas power plant which is ineffecient when compared to other power plants with like outputs.

 

[mamooth]

We have already given you the links to the ACTUAL reports from Ivanpah and from the State regulating agencies that prove your wiki bullshit to be...well, bullshit. Try again.

No, you have nothing. The reports absolutely did not say "Ivanpah did not generate any power in 2015 except from the natgas", which is what you're claiming. Your claims are a totally unsupported wild fantasy. You can't just pretend the reports said what you wish they'd said. You have to _show_ that. So do so. We'll wait.

In contrast, I showed my numbers and sources very clearly. Because I can. Because the facts and data back me up. Ivanpah put out 8 times the power of the natgas it burned. That's not debatable, unless you're claiming wiki is using fake data.

This started out as a mistake on your part. Why not just admit that, instead of digging in deeper?

 

[westwall]

We have already given you the links to the ACTUAL reports from Ivanpah and from the State regulating agencies that prove your wiki bullshit to be...well, bullshit. Try again.

No, you have nothing. The reports absolutely did not say "Ivanpah did not generate any power in 2015 except from the natgas", which is what you're claiming. Your claims are a totally unsupported wild fantasy. You can't just pretend the reports said what you wish they'd said. You have to _show_ that. So do so. We'll wait.

In contrast, I showed my numbers and sources very clearly. Because I can. Because the facts and data back me up. Ivanpah put out 8 times the power of the natgas it burned. That's not debatable, unless you're claiming wiki is using fake data.

This started out as a mistake on your part. Why not just admit that, instead of digging in deeper?

Dude. You're the moron posting crap from wiki that is not corroborated by ANYTHING. Ivanpah is in very real danger of being shut down for non production. That's REAL. If it were going along as swimmingly as you claim they wouldn't even be considering that.

Do you see yet how out of touch with reality you truly are?

Will your response when it is shut down to deny that and claim it is still operational? Just wondering...

 

[mamooth]

Dude. You're the moron posting crap from wiki that is not corroborated by ANYTHING.

Wiki's source is the EIA, the US Energy Administration Agency.

Electricity Data Browser

Your source is ... well, you don't have one. You keep saying you have these magic reports, but those reports don't say what you claim. At least you can't show any part of them that say it.

Ivanpah is in very real danger of being shut down for non production. That's REAL. If it were going along as swimmingly as you claim they wouldn't even be considering that

No, that's a fantasy you cooked up, the "non-production" thing. The problem it has is _low_ production, which would be a completely different thing. You do understand the difference between "none" and "low", right?

(Now, contract law might talk about "non-delivery", but that's a separate thing, just meaning the full contract wasn't fulfilled.)

Do you see yet how out of touch with reality you truly are?

I'm not the one refusing to post any data to support his claims, or invoking a conspiracy theory about how wiki must be faking the data. That's you. Since your argument has no data backing it up and requires a conspiracy theory to support it, that indicates you're the delusional one.

Will your response when it is shut down to deny that and claim it is still operational? Just wondering...

Is admitting you made a mistake really that hard?

This is why it's so good to be on the rational side. We don't have cult leaders ordering us to hold the line against the infidels, so we're free to admit mistakes.

 

[flacaltenn]

The wold's solar plants kill a tiny fraction of the number of birds and animals killed by the use of oil and coal for power. Ivanpah does work. However, as weve seen, the cost of solar PV is now less than that of thermal. Ivanpah is almost undoubtedly the last large scale solar-thermal plant to be built for that reason alone. Birds and wildlife are far, far better served by alternative energy sources than by the acquisition and combustion of fossil fuels for power.
***************************************************************************************
Either way, the results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind. Note the chart below:

A U.S. News and World Report chart shows estimates of how many birds are killed each year by different fuel sources.

CREDIT: U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT

You are truly fact challenged. This is NOT a photovoltaic "solar" installation. It is a VERY RARE Solar thermal site. So comparing deaths/MWatt generated to ALL of solar ---- is as meaningless as the time you spend in this forum trying to comprehend the issues..

Why don't you try reading what I wrote.

This:

"Ivanpah does work. However, as weve seen, the cost of solar PV is now less than that of thermal. Ivanpah is almost undoubtedly the last large scale solar-thermal plant to be built for that reason alone.

clearly states that Ivanpah is solar thermal.

Hey Bullwinkle -- IvanPah has NOT worked. Would FAIL to meet market expectations for investors. And I was complaining about the chart you produced.