The 8 Most Exciting Solar Projects in the U.S. [Updated]

[mdn2000]

The cost is tremendous and completely ignored. This is being built with Federal tax money as well, the whole project is never going to turn a profit outside of mandating that consumers pay extremely high rates. These are contracts that gurantee rates for 20 years. Higher rates even if the cost of making electricity goes down.

With technology, energy production has become cheaper if we use Nuclear power or Fossil fuel, yet we will pay more money and receive less power.

Whats next, a meter on our house that the California Government can use to turn off our power when the Solar plant fails to provide the advertised energy, oh, they have that already, its called a Smart Meter.
Wall Street Journal: The Great Transmission Heist - News - News Room - United States Senator Bob Corker, Tennessee

Wall Street Journal: The Great Transmission Heist
The latest scheme to subsidize solar and wind power to the detriment of rate payers.
Review & Outlook
November 8 2010 -

How would you like to pay higher utility bills to finance expensive electricity from solar and wind power, which you would never use? That's the issue now before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and it deserves more public and political scrutiny before it becomes a reality.

FERC has a draft rule that could effectively socialize the costs of paying for multi-billion dollar transmission lines to connect remote wind and solar projects to the nation's electric power grid. If FERC rules in favor of Big Wind and Big Solar, the new policy would add billions of dollars onto the utility bills of residents of at least a dozen states—including California, Michigan, Oregon and New York—that will receive little or no benefit from the new power line

 

[mdn2000]

#7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world". That will cover close to a million homes.

While the sun is shining. Oops.

The plants are located in Mojave California, Boulder City Nevada and Gila Bend Arizona and Blythe California where the sun shines 300+ days a year! Everywhere else: No dice.

On average 300 days, meaning that some years you could have only 200 days of sun, what then?

What about the cost of food, cheap energy gives us cheap food, how are them food prices doing in your supermarket.

Not only do we need cheap energy to make cheap food, it seems in California they will take farmers land out of production to build Green Energy. Less food, less energy to make food, sounds like a great plan.

Bottom line, the Green Energy lobby has won, Politicians and Corporations are transferring billions of tax payer money to their new BMW's and Mercedes. Nice expensive homes with the best food money can buy.

We get to foot the bill.

 

[Synthaholic]

Do you even know where we get most of our oil from?

Canada, Mexico, U.S., Venezuela.

Why does it matter? It all pollutes. It is all finite. The huge increase in demand will only make gas prices rise higher and higher.

So your argument about the money spent in the Middle east has absolutely nothing to do with the tax subsidies so called green energy companies eat up.

They are two different arguments that come to the same conclusion: oil is an energy dead end, because it will soon become too expensive for average Americans. When that happens, our economy is going to suffer greatly.

This doesn't even address the rising food prices, due to the diversion of corn to help meet demand. It's one of the factors in the Egyption crisis.

 

[Synthaholic]

Better question. How many INDUSTRIES can one of those plants supply with consistent, reliable power?

It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.

Name one power plant in California that uses foreign oil to produce electricity. You can not do it because its a lie that Solar Power reduces use of foreign oil.

OK, I'll play along: what DOES solar power reduce the use of? What will we use less of with more solar power?

 

[Synthaholic]

Not mentioned is this is going to cost the tax payers 1.3 billion dollars, thats right, the same cost of a nuclear power plant that produces at least 1000 times more energy. Also not mentioned is this project is on public land, or government owned land, hence that is a huge subsidy, imagine if you had to by over 9 Square miles of land to build a Solar Plant, that cost alone would make it impossible.

Oh well, fuck the public, give our money to Spanish and Israeli companies. Thats right, some of this project if not all is being made by a corporation in Israel. Not the place I would create jobs but I just pay tax and high electric rates in California.

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System BrightSource

January 17, 2011 - On Friday January 14, 2011 Western Watersheds Project filed suit in federal court to halt construction of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System on 5.4 square miles of high quality habitat for the threatened Desert tortoise.

“No project can be considered clean or green when it involves destruction of habitat for a species listed under Endangered Species Act on this scale,” said Dr. Michael J. Connor, California Director for Western Watersheds Project. “The Department of Interior is tasked with siting energy projects in an environmentally sound manner. Instead it is allowing thousands of acres of important desert tortoise habitat to be bulldozed when there are alternative ways of generating power”

Oh, now wingnuts are concerned with turtle habitat. That's funny!

 

[mdn2000]

It's not meant to be the only source of power, but a supplement that will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It goes into the grid which you well know, but choose to ignore in favor of your well-documented biases toward anything that makes sense.

Name one power plant in California that uses foreign oil to produce electricity. You can not do it because its a lie that Solar Power reduces use of foreign oil.

OK, I'll play along: what DOES solar power reduce the use of? What will we use less of with more solar power?

We become more dependent on foreign oil, takes more oil to build power plants that produce less electricity.

You will play along, grow up and get a brain, you say we will use less oil, show how, you cannot even begin to show one power plant using foreign oil, how do you save oil when its not be used to make electricity in California.

Common sense seems to be lacking.

What about Bighorn Sheep, Coyotes, owls, the fox, the snake, the lizard. What about the desert flowers who seeds the birds eat, the seeds the mice eat, in which the hawks and eagles eat.

You do not give a shit about nothing but your own selfish self.

Funny, we are the wingnuts you lie about, against the environment yet it was a Republican that created the EPA on the heels of the destruction caused to the environment by Democrat policies.

Solar Energy, all this shows is when it comes to saving the earth, Democrats are hypocrites, or as the books all state, we must destroy the earth and the human race to save the earth.

 

[whitehall]

When are lefties gonna learn that trading 1,600 acres for a small return on power is not the way to go? I understand that most of the solar stuff is made in China because China has few restrictions on using hazardous material.

 

[Old Rocks]

Before I went my pants, how many homes will these projects power. For example, with these projects, what percentage of CA's power will come from solar power?

My guess is, and I don't want to be pestimissitic, is about 2-3% of CA needs!

Ever try reading something before yapping?

 

[Old Rocks]

It's not meant to be the only source of power

Bullshit.

Oh wait wait...you're right. They want wind to take care of the rest.

Wind, wave, nuclear, slow current, geo-thermal, yes, these can take care of the rest.

And just to remind you dingbats, solar thermal is 24/7.

 

[Old Rocks]

What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?

Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.

 

[Skull Pilot]

What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?

Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.

Proof?

 

[Old Rocks]

When are lefties gonna learn that trading 1,600 acres for a small return on power is not the way to go? I understand that most of the solar stuff is made in China because China has few restrictions on using hazardous material.

I understand that dumb asses tend to yap before ever checking the veracity of their statements. Here in Oregon, we have several solar manufacturers with 200 to 500 megawatt capacity. That is a lot of solar panels. First Solar has a contract with China to provide panels for a 2 Gw plant in China, and First Solar is an American company.

 

[Old Rocks]

What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?

Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.

Proof?

Comments on: EPA: Natural Gas Driller Tainted Texas Aquifer - CBS News

 

[Defiant1]

Yeah, that's a tough question.

Try reading the OP!

#1 says SEGS provides power for 232,500 homes.

#3 says 70,000 homes.

#7 says "California will produce a whopping 1000 MW of power, making it the largest solar power plant in the world". That will cover close to a million homes.

What percentage of CA will be powered by solar power after these projects?

Well, I don't know. But if you click the link, you will see that a number of these projects are in California. So even if it ends up being 5 million homes, that covers close to 20 million people, figuring an average of 4 people per household.

That's 5 million houses/20 million people who are not using oil, lessening demand, lessening cost.

This can be great if it lessens the restrictions on CAFE standards. I want to bring back mass production of muscle cars.

Oh to feel that thunder and speed once again. Not have to drive around in pussy cars.

 

[Old Rocks]

What kind of tax subsidies is that company getting?

Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.

Proof?

Public Citizen Climate and Energy

Environmental Law Institute

Obama Budget Erases Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Ramps Up Nuclear Spending | SolveClimate News

http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07March/RL33763.pdf

The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) was introduced by the House
Democratic leadership to revise certain tax and royalty policies for oil and natural gas
and to use the resulting revenue to support a reserve for energy efficiency and
renewable energy. Title I proposes to repeal certain oil and natural gas tax subsidies,
and use the resulting revenue stream to support the reserve. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Title I would repeal about $7.7 billion in oil and
gas tax subsidies over the 10-year period from 2008 through 2017. In House floor
debate, opponents argued that the cut in oil and natural gas subsidies would dampen
production, cause job losses, and lead to higher prices for gasoline and other fuels.
Proponents counterargued that record profits show that the oil and natural gas
subsidies were not needed. The bill passed the House on January 18 by a vote of
264-123. This report presents a detailed review of oil and gas tax subsidies,
including those targeted for repeal by H.R. 6.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil
and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas
industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil
and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11
years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil
refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas
refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857
million minus $1,501 million).

 

[Old Rocks]

What percentage of CA will be powered by solar power after these projects?

Well, I don't know. But if you click the link, you will see that a number of these projects are in California. So even if it ends up being 5 million homes, that covers close to 20 million people, figuring an average of 4 people per household.

That's 5 million houses/20 million people who are not using oil, lessening demand, lessening cost.

This can be great if it lessens the restrictions on CAFE standards. I want to bring back mass production of muscle cars.

Oh to feel that thunder and speed once again. Not have to drive around in pussy cars.

I was building engines when I was in high school in the late fifties. Are you so lazy or dumb that you cannot build them now with so much more information available?

There is no law against you building a muscle car for yourself. There are plenty of usable bodies in the junkyards, and large bore engines that you can build to your heart's content.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not near as many as oil, gas, and coal. And no exemptions from the clean water and air acts.

Proof?

Public Citizen Climate and Energy

Environmental Law Institute

Obama Budget Erases Fossil Fuel Subsidies, Ramps Up Nuclear Spending | SolveClimate News

http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07March/RL33763.pdf

The CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) was introduced by the House
Democratic leadership to revise certain tax and royalty policies for oil and natural gas
and to use the resulting revenue to support a reserve for energy efficiency and
renewable energy. Title I proposes to repeal certain oil and natural gas tax subsidies,
and use the resulting revenue stream to support the reserve. The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Title I would repeal about $7.7 billion in oil and
gas tax subsidies over the 10-year period from 2008 through 2017. In House floor
debate, opponents argued that the cut in oil and natural gas subsidies would dampen
production, cause job losses, and lead to higher prices for gasoline and other fuels.
Proponents counterargued that record profits show that the oil and natural gas
subsidies were not needed. The bill passed the House on January 18 by a vote of
264-123. This report presents a detailed review of oil and gas tax subsidies,
including those targeted for repeal by H.R. 6.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05, P.L. 109-58) included several oil
and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas
industry. In addition, EPACT05 provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil
and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11
years. Energy tax increases comprise the oil spill liability tax and the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank financing rate, both of which are imposed on oil
refineries. If these taxes are subtracted from the tax subsidies, the oil and gas
refinery and distribution sector received a net tax increase of $1,356 million ($2,857
million minus $1,501 million).

Nothing about how much so called green energy has received?

You contention was the green energy gets way less in tax subsidies. All you have shown in the oil gets subsidies (which btw I do not agree with)

 

[TacomaJPP]

I'm new to the board, but would like to interject my .02 here.

1) Solar will never be the primary energy source for all electrical needs....nor is it meant to be. However, enough solar energy hits the entire earth everyday to power the needs of mankind (at our current demands) for 27 years. Again, the problem would be harnessing that energy.....ie, solar panels floating on the ocean and covering every square inch of earth....not gonna happen, but it does prove the point that a huge potential is solar energy.

Twenty-one percent (21%) of electrical consumption in the US is attributed to residential needs. That's a healthy chunk of electrical energy. If we were able to outfit most homes with efficient electrical panels and reduce that demand by 75%, that would be substantial...however, that would take decades.

2) Wind is not very viable. It is random, unpredictable, and the most expensive form of alterative energy (to fossil fuels) with respect to watt / $. Sorry, it is.

3) Geothermal isn't bad and could really be a great addition to residential forms of heating/cooling. Prices are coming down in the next decade or so, it may be much more affordable for the average American home. However, right now, where the average heating/cooling unit is about $6k, the average G/T unit is about 3x that.

4) Hydro-electric is a very sustainable and clean form of energy. In my home state, Tennessee, nearly 20% of power is derived from hydroelectric.

5) Nuclear. Nuclear is the short-term answer to a medium range problem. We will not be able to build enough windmills, solar panels, etc to sustain our medium term needs (<50 years). This can be done through nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cheapest form of alternative energy WRT watt/$. It is safe and clean and is sustainable and attainable and will power our needs.

6) Tidal technology is progressing and some potential exists with this technology, but again, it will take years to make this a sustainable energy solution.

The problem is that we are now facing energy problems and anything other than nuclear is not proven and efficient. Most other forms of energy are still very expensive, very under-powered, and will take decades to get to the level of viability. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue alternative energy sources. We must still realize that in 100 years from now, our problems will be more severe and the decisions we make today will consequences on those people then.

Regardless, it is NOT the place of the US government to step in and dictate every single thing and pay for unsustainable subsidies. We are broke. We have no money to pay for these things, PERIOD. If the government wants to stem creative and innovative solutions, I have two simple solutions:

A) Implement Trade Reciprocity. Simply apply the trade rules to other countries that they apply to us.

B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.

 

[Synthaholic]

Welcome to the board!

I was with you there until the last paragraph, when you ran off the rails.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm new to the board, but would like to interject my .02 here.

Welcome!

1) Solar will never be the primary energy source for all electrical needs....nor is it meant to be. However, enough solar energy hits the entire earth everyday to power the needs of mankind (at our current demands) for 27 years. Again, the problem would be harnessing that energy.....ie, solar panels floating on the ocean and covering every square inch of earth....not gonna happen, but it does prove the point that a huge potential is solar energy.

Twenty-one percent (21%) of electrical consumption in the US is attributed to residential needs. That's a healthy chunk of electrical energy. If we were able to outfit most homes with efficient electrical panels and reduce that demand by 75%, that would be substantial...however, that would take decades.

Well said, however I think that as solar becomes more efficient and cheaper, it will be installed much more rapidly than you predict.

2) Wind is not very viable. It is random, unpredictable, and the most expensive form of alterative energy (to fossil fuels) with respect to watt / $. Sorry, it is.

You are wrong here concerning the cost. At present, wind in many places can be installed at less per watt then dirty coal. But you are correct on it's undependability in any one locality. However, a real nationwide grid would go far to alleviate that problem.

3) Geothermal isn't bad and could really be a great addition to residential forms of heating/cooling. Prices are coming down in the next decade or so, it may be much more affordable for the average American home. However, right now, where the average heating/cooling unit is about $6k, the average G/T unit is about 3x that.

Geothermal has great promise. Google what a MIT research team has to say concerning its potential.

4) Hydro-electric is a very sustainable and clean form of energy. In my home state, Tennessee, nearly 20% of power is derived from hydroelectric.

Very dependable. And not many potential sites left here in the Western US.

5) Nuclear. Nuclear is the short-term answer to a medium range problem. We will not be able to build enough windmills, solar panels, etc to sustain our medium term needs (<50 years). This can be done through nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cheapest form of alternative energy WRT watt/$. It is safe and clean and is sustainable and attainable and will power our needs.

Nuclear, particularly the fourth and fifth generation type, have great promise. But, thus far, nuclear has been very expensive power.



6) Tidal technology is progressing and some potential exists with this technology, but again, it will take years to make this a sustainable energy solution.

We are working with that in Oregon. Yes, it will take time. Actually there is a developing technology that holds much more promise, and that is slow current.

Michael Bernitsas -- VIVACE : Vortex-Induced Vibrations for Clean Aquatic Energy

The problem is that we are now facing energy problems and anything other than nuclear is not proven and efficient. Most other forms of energy are still very expensive, very under-powered, and will take decades to get to the level of viability. However, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't pursue alternative energy sources. We must still realize that in 100 years from now, our problems will be more severe and the decisions we make today will consequences on those people then.

Regardless, it is NOT the place of the US government to step in and dictate every single thing and pay for unsustainable subsidies. We are broke. We have no money to pay for these things, PERIOD. If the government wants to stem creative and innovative solutions, I have two simple solutions:

A) Implement Trade Reciprocity. Simply apply the trade rules to other countries that they apply to us.

B) Cut income and business taxes to a flat 10% and be done. Businessess would be encourage to stay in the US instead of heading to Mexico, Cambodia, Vietnam, China, Panama, etc. With their extra revenue, money could be invested in forging ahead with R&D for future technology. But by no means will the US be successful in the long term by the subsidy system. We will fail. It's American ingenuity and spirit that will save our country, not bought-and-paid for DC politicians.

Thus far, I see no hope for a single level income and business tax bringing enough income to pay for the government that we expect.