World's largest solar plant now online

[Toddsterpatriot]

How the fuck would YOU know?

Because I'm too smart to be fooled by warmer BS.

 

[Abraham3]

And what bearing does any of that have on climate science?

The answer to that is the reason you see a non-sequitur between plant performance and climate performance. The former is utterly and completely irrelevant to the latter.

 

[Dot Com]

"Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy". Man up and admit your mistakes. And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.

he's a denier troll like the others in this sub-forum. After I pointed out the absurdity in one of his claims, he moved the goalposts lol.

 

[polarbear]

"Not meeting expectations" does not mean "not producing energy". Man up and admit your mistakes. And, again, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the validity of AGW.

It does mean "not producing energy".
If it is, then tell me why it`s still on the California ISO "curtailed and non-operational list"

IVANPA_1_UNIT1 Ivanpah 1 Unplanned
IVANPA_1_UNIT2 Ivanpah 2 Unplanned
IVANPA_1_UNIT3 Ivanpah 3 Planned, Unplanned

A monitor in the control room of the Ivanpah SEGS displays steam cycle data, on February 27, 2014.

Feedwaterflow = 0
Main steam flow =0
Turbine (G) output = 0

 

[Abraham3]

So what?

 

[flacaltenn]

So what?

^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is the reaction of a True Denier out of ammo..

You shouldn't have wasted so many posts attempting to defend an undefendable claim.. That's what.
And then shouting "So What?" only makes you look like you don't care you wasted your time (or the topic)..

SOMEDAY -- IvanPah might work as planned.. But even then --- it solves virtually no grid capacity problem for California.. It's just an interesting (and very expensive) experiment at this point.. Bravo to the brave souls who's money got flushed...

 

[HenryBHough]

It strikes me that a boiler fired with Obamabucks would be cheaper to run than this looking glass bird killer.

 

[polarbear]

So what?

^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is the reaction of a True Denier out of ammo..

You shouldn't have wasted so many posts attempting to defend an undefendable claim.. That's what.
And then shouting "So What?" only makes you look like you don't care you wasted your time (or the topic)..

SOMEDAY -- IvanPah might work as planned.. But even then --- it solves virtually no grid capacity problem for California.. It's just an interesting (and very expensive) experiment at this point.. Bravo to the brave souls who's money got flushed...

THAT is how these liars "man up" when you confront them with the facts.
"So what?" is the shorter libtard caught in a lie response variation of Hillary Clinton`s "what difference does it make" .

You won`t see the IPCC "man up" to any of their mistakes either.
All they do is invent better rubber words to rephrase their previous statements.

Next month we`ll see another example. For now all we got is what has been leaked and published in German:

Geheimer Uno-Report: Klimarat zweifelt an Prognosen zum Artensterben

Der Uno-Klimarat IPCC zieht seine bisherigen Prognosen eines Artensterbens überraschend stark in Zweifel
In den vergangenen Jahren seien wissenschaftliche Unsicherheiten "offenkundiger geworden". Der Klimarat zog die Konsequenz aus den erkannten Problemen: Im Berichtsentwurf werden keine konkreten Zahlen mehr genannt zum postulierten Artensterben.
Akuter Datenmangel
Auch biologische Kenntnisse vergrößern die Zweifel am zu erwartenden Artensterben. Bislang, so räumt der IPCC ein, gebe es keinen Beweis, dass der Klimawandel auch nur zum Aussterben einer einzigen Art geführt hat.
Bei den meisten Lebewesen aber mangele es an grundlegenden Daten, sagt der Zoologe Ragnar Kinzelbach von der Universität Rostock.

Short translation:
There is an "acute shortage of data" supporting the previous IPCC claims that climate change will extinct any species, while data to the contrary has been accumulated.
In light of this, the new IPCC draft does no longer mention any specifics concerning climate related species extinction.
Rostock`s university Ragnar Kinzelbach likens the IPCC`s stance to a fig-leaf covering up the real causes which threaten certain species:

"Monokulturen, Überdüngung oder Bodenzerstörung vernichten mehr Arten als mehrere Grad Temperaturanstieg es je vermögen."

Mono-culturing and over fertilizing wipe out more species than several degrees of temperature increase could possibly threaten certain species.

All the IPCC does, is dropping the crap concerning species extinction they published so far and hope nobody remembers what they said before in their previous reports.
That might even work, were it not for AGW zealots like Apostel Abraham3 who keep digging up the old& outdated bunko and recycle it here.

 

[flacaltenn]

When science tells you they have four good reasons for threats to a specie, and the GW crowd gets their claim on the front pages... THATs what the public and the media remember.. Its a huge disservice to the attempts to actually rescue endangered species.....

 

[Abraham3]

So what?

^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is the reaction of a True Denier out of ammo..

You shouldn't have wasted so many posts attempting to defend an undefendable claim.. That's what.
And then shouting "So What?" only makes you look like you don't care you wasted your time (or the topic)..

SOMEDAY -- IvanPah might work as planned.. But even then --- it solves virtually no grid capacity problem for California.. It's just an interesting (and very expensive) experiment at this point.. Bravo to the brave souls who's money got flushed...

My claims are facts.

1) Ivanpah produces electricity - and will continue to produce electricity - producing a tiny fraction of the GHGs that a fossil fuel-powered plant would of the same capacity would produce.

HOWEVER

2) Whether Ivanpah works better than could have ever been hoped or burns to the ground in a heap of slag HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE VALIDITY OF AGW.

So, whatever comments you may have about the operation of the plant, my sole and appropriate response is "SO WHAT?"

And I didn't waste any posts. I told you long ago that the function of Ivanpah was irrelevant. Anything you posted beyond that point is on your head.

 

[polarbear]

When science tells you they have four good reasons for threats to a specie, and the GW crowd gets their claim on the front pages... THATs what the public and the media remember.. Its a huge disservice to the attempts to actually rescue endangered species.....

"Brightsource" has been, shall we say less than forthcoming right from the start:
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Final Staff Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The facilities would require pumping groundwater from a new well for "make-up water" for the steam system it evaporates from the dry-cooling process, and wash water for the heliostats, as well as potable water for domestic water needs. Approximately 16,000 gallons of water per night would be used for mirror washing (that would be almost 6 million gallons per year if trucks ran every night, 18 acre-feet, although BrightSource seems to need more as elsewhere they say they need 42.6 acre-feet per year for washing).
The applicant estimates project water consumption would not exceed a maximum of 100 acre-feet per year.
But BrightSource doubled the proposed number of mirrors on each heliostat and changed the mirror array fields from what was originally proposed, and then wanted more water.
BLM and CEC quote two different groundwater studies from the that estimate 1,275 and 1,607 acre-feet per year of recharge, two other studies from 2000 that range from 2,845 to 5,800 afy, and a study in 2008 that estimated 2,806 afy.
Conveniently, a study done by the applicant and another by CEC recently estimated a high of from 5,223 to 6,200 afy. No surprise here, those with most at stake found the most water to use.
CEC/BLM seems a bit worried nevertheless, and ask the applicant to develop a monitoring program and identify what changes are occurring in basin water levels. They note that 40-foot declines in groundwater levels have already been seen around existing wells.

Prophet Abraham3 is getting increasingly irate as the true facts regarding Ivanpah are coming to light and is trying to change the subject in true libtard fashion

2) Whether Ivanpah works better than could have ever been hoped or burns to the ground in a heap of slag HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE VALIDITY OF AGW.

[MENTION=38720]Abraham3[/MENTION]
This thread is about Ivanpah whether you like it or not.
You already started a couple of hundred of your own stupid AGW threads, so why don`t you f-off into any one of these and rant there.

 

[Abraham3]

Because you insulted me.

Ivanpah will eventually operate as designed. There is nothing significantly novel in her design. That all of you think there IS some deep meaning to her start up troubles looks to me like a symptom of desperation. Whether or not Ivanpah works says NOTHING about the validity of AGW.

Let's say that again so the slow learners have a chance to pick it up.


Whether or not Ivanpah works says NOTHING about the validity of AGW.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you..
This thread is NOT ABOUT AGWarming.. It's about Ivanpah.

 

[westwall]

So what?

^^^^^^^^^^ THAT is the reaction of a True Denier out of ammo..

You shouldn't have wasted so many posts attempting to defend an undefendable claim.. That's what.
And then shouting "So What?" only makes you look like you don't care you wasted your time (or the topic)..

SOMEDAY -- IvanPah might work as planned.. But even then --- it solves virtually no grid capacity problem for California.. It's just an interesting (and very expensive) experiment at this point.. Bravo to the brave souls who's money got flushed...

My claims are facts.

1) Ivanpah produces electricity - and will continue to produce electricity - producing a tiny fraction of the GHGs that a fossil fuel-powered plant would of the same capacity would produce.

HOWEVER

2) Whether Ivanpah works better than could have ever been hoped or burns to the ground in a heap of slag HAS NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE VALIDITY OF AGW.

So, whatever comments you may have about the operation of the plant, my sole and appropriate response is "SO WHAT?"

And I didn't waste any posts. I told you long ago that the function of Ivanpah was irrelevant. Anything you posted beyond that point is on your head.

No, your facts have been shown to be false. That makes them bullshit. Just like you.

 

[Abraham3]

And by such statements you are known a liar.

 

[freedombecki]

And by such statements you are known a liar.

No he isn't.

 

[polarbear]

Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you..
This thread is NOT ABOUT AGWarming.. It's about Ivanpah.

When their shining example of "sustainable energy" runs out of water, which will be the case long before any gas or coal fired power plant will run out of fuel, then these zealots will say (again) that it was due to AGWarming:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/23/3417814/global-warming-california-drought/

Yes, Manmade Global Warming Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought

The president’s science advisor John Holdren made precisely the same points in a recent paper.

If that is true then Ivanpah was a spectacular mis-calculation and they need a scape goat...which will be the fossil fuel industry as usual.

 

[Abraham3]

Enjoy. But I might then ask if this thread then belongs in an Environment forum. Seems more like Current Events or Engineering Today.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you..
This thread is NOT ABOUT AGWarming.. It's about Ivanpah.

When their shining example of "sustainable energy" runs out of water, which will be the case long before any gas or coal fired power plant will run out of fuel, then these zealots will say (again) that it was due to AGWarming:

Yes, Manmade Global Warming Is Worsening California's Epic Drought | ThinkProgress

Yes, Manmade Global Warming Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought

The president’s science advisor John Holdren made precisely the same points in a recent paper.

If that is true then Ivanpah was a spectacular mis-calculation and they need a scape goat...which will be the fossil fuel industry as usual.

But PBear -- thats so remarkably observant.. It's already been done.. Someone (remains nameless) tried to blame CSP projects like Ivanpah on BIG OIL.. He was defending "parabolic mirror" CSP design over these concentrators with flat mirrors.

It's ALWAYS a Big Oil conspiracy when stuff goes wrong...

 

[polarbear]

Lemme repeat what PBear politely tried to tell you..
This thread is NOT ABOUT AGWarming.. It's about Ivanpah.

When their shining example of "sustainable energy" runs out of water, which will be the case long before any gas or coal fired power plant will run out of fuel, then these zealots will say (again) that it was due to AGWarming:

Yes, Manmade Global Warming Is Worsening California's Epic Drought | ThinkProgress

Yes, Manmade Global Warming Is Worsening California’s Epic Drought

The president’s science advisor John Holdren made precisely the same points in a recent paper.

If that is true then Ivanpah was a spectacular mis-calculation and they need a scape goat...which will be the fossil fuel industry as usual.

But PBear -- thats so remarkably observant.. It's already been done.. Someone (remains nameless) tried to blame CSP projects like Ivanpah on BIG OIL.. He was defending "parabolic mirror" CSP design over these concentrators with flat mirrors.

It's ALWAYS a Big Oil conspiracy when stuff goes wrong...

I wonder how much more these 2.5 million m^2 mirrors would have cost if they were parabolic instead of planar.
The choice to go with planar mirrors was made way back in 1981 with "Solar1", (later renamed Solar2) Barstow CA.
As an added benefit you can use the flat mirror array as a Cherenkov Telescope after Ivanpah is defunct.

University of California research teams began converting Solar Two into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001
Solar Two, with its vast surface area and individually controlled heliostats, is particularly well suited to observations of this type.

After they shut it down as a power plant they decided to market it outside the US:

Christopher Powers, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, doesn't think that the solar farm technology will be pursued in the U.S. where other energy sources are cheaper, but it could have real world applications today where electricity is expensive and there is tons of sunlight, in places like the Middle East. [3]

They weren`t buying it but France did:
The Themis program and the 2500-kW Themis solar power station at Targasonne

The Themis program and the 2500-kW Themis solar power station at Targasonne
The system employs molten salt as the heat transfer fluid and 200 54-sq m heliostats. An electrical output of 3 million kW/year is expected, under the assumption of a 16-percent output efficiency. This performance is noted, however, to produce energy that is 50 times more expensive than nuclear energy.

Which now looks like this:
Themis Experimental Solar Power Plant, France | The Blog of Photographer Alastair Philip Wiper

Construction started in 1979 at a cost of 300 million French francs (about 45 million euros), and was operated and managed by Électricité de France (EDF). The plant went into hibernation for more than twenty years, and turned into a scientific facility of the CERN, and the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique focusing on astrophysics, with an open air Cherenkov Telescope, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere (see IACT).

So unless the cost of nuclear or other power comes way up in a hurry you got yourself another 2.2 billion Cherenkov telescope