Print 65 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Feb 26 at 4:31 PM

Ivanpah is located near the California-Nevada border, about 45 miles southwest of Las Vegas

Solar just got a major boost as the world’s largest solar thermal power project officially opened today. 
According to NRG Energy, which co-owns the new complex along with Google and BrightSource Energy, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System will begin commercial operation today, although it started generating electricity last year.
Ivanpah is located near the California-Nevada border, about 45 miles southwest of Las Vegas. It's a $2.2 billion complex of three generating units, which together are capable of producing nearly 400 megawatts -- enough to power 140,000 homes. 
Sporting the tagline "world’s largest solar thermal power project," Ivanpah is five square miles of nearly 350,000 computer-controlled mirrors, which are about the size of a garage door each. They reflect sunlight to boilers at the top of 459-foot towers, where the sun heats water in the boilers' tubes and make steam. This steam then drives turbines to generate electricity. 

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System 
What's more is that this particular area receives a lot of sunshine most of the year, and it's close to transmission lines, which send power to consumers. 
“Cleantech innovations such as Ivanpah are critical to establishing America’s leadership in large-scale, clean-energy technology that will keep our economy globally competitive over the next several decades,” said Tom Doyle, president, NRG Solar.
“We see Ivanpah changing the energy landscape by proving that utility-scale solar is not only possible, but incredibly beneficial to both the economy and in how we produce and consume energy. Whether it’s partnering, developing or investing, NRG will continue to provide a diverse set of solutions and technologies to get the U.S. to the ultimate goal of providing affordable, reliable clean energy for everyone.”
Google said in 2011 that it would invest $168 million in the project while BrightSource contributed $1.6 billion in loans guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System tower 1 and power block
This is a big deal for solar, as it presently accounts for less than 1 percent of the nation's power output. Obstacles like cost and environmental effects have largely slowed the adoption of solar.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration data said the cost of generating a megawatt-hour of power in a traditional coal plant is around $100, while it's around $261 for solar thermal power.
Environmentalists also worry that the amount of land needed to accommodate solar farms may negatively affect animals and plants that reside there. In the case of Ivanpah, coyotes, tortoises and plants like milkweed are indigenous to the area. 
Ivanpah had to go through years of regulatory and legal battles concerning environmental concerns before its opening. 

Source: NRG Energy

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By tng on 2/13/2014 3:13:38 PM , Rating: 5
Environmentalists also worry that the amount of land needed to accommodate solar farms may negatively affect animals and plants that reside there.
Yet they continue to tell us how bad Gas, Hydro and Nuke power is.

Seems that they can't make up their minds. They would have us living in caves and if we started a fire to stay warm, they would protest that as well.

RE: Environmentalists
By tng on 2/13/2014 3:14:49 PM , Rating: 1
Oh and one thing the article forgot, how many gigawatts does in generate at night?

RE: Environmentalists
By Spuke on 2/13/2014 3:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
From what I've read, it won't be running at night. Also on cold mornings and cloudy days it requires natural gas fired steam boilers to heat up stuff.

RE: Environmentalists
By Spuke on 2/13/2014 3:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Each solar development phase would include:

A natural gas-fired start-up boiler to provide heat for plant start-up and during temporary cloud cover

An air-cooled condenser or "dry cooling," to minimize water usage in the site's desert environment

One Rankine-cycle reheat steam turbine that receives live steam from the solar boilers and reheat steam from one solar reheater located in the power block at the top of its own tower adjacent to the turbine

And a raw water tank with a 250,000 gallon capacity; 100,000 gallons to be used for the plant and the remainder to be reserved for fire water.

a small onsite wastewater plant located in the power block that treats wastewater from domestic waste streams such as showers and toilets

auxiliary equipment including feed water heaters, a deaerator, an emergency diesel generator, and a diesel fire pump.

RE: Environmentalists
By Solandri on 2/13/2014 4:06:24 PM , Rating: 4
Capacity factor (actual power produced as a fraction of peak power) for these types of concentrated solar thermal systems is typically around 0.33. Much higher than PV (about 0.10 to 0.19) due to the mirrors tracking the sun, and the molten salt remaining hot for a while when the sun sets or passes behind clouds. (Peak power production OTOH is lower per m^2 due to inefficiencies introduced by having to use a steam turbine to generate electricity.)

Solar thermal is a good energy source if you can get rid of the steam turbine (i.e. for thermal applications). If you have the space and environment for it, it's an easy and cheap way to pre-heat your water before it goes to your water heater. About $500 building a tank with a transparent front and the inside painted black can save you hundreds of dollars a year in water heating costs.

For electricity generation though, the overall Watts per m^2 ends up being about the same or slightly worse than PV, which itself is pretty abysmal compared to conventional fuels and wind. That means it's good for large installations (mirrors are substantially cheaper than PV panels). But the complexity is not really something you want for smaller installations.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalists
By Flunk on 2/13/2014 6:46:03 PM , Rating: 5
This doesn't use any solar oanels . Did you even read the article?

RE: Environmentalists
By TheEquatorialSky on 2/13/2014 7:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I don't understand how littering virgin desert landscape with mirrors is "green." Obviously every industrial process has pros/cons associated with it. Making out "renewable energy" to be beneficial for the environment is dubious, in my opinion.

Nuclear reactors using modern fuel cycles seems like the "greenest" solution to me...

Anyone want to vote me in as absolute dictator of the United States? I'll make you all official members of the national peanut gallery. :)

RE: Environmentalists
By wordsworm on 2/13/2014 7:38:59 PM , Rating: 3
They all have problems and drawbacks. People aren't dying from coal smoke in London any more because people who cared about the environment spoke out against it and made changes to laws that consequently cleaned up the air.

I remember as a kid driving past LA and being amazed at how badly cars were destroying the air quality of the city. Environmentalists banded together and brought about changes to clean that up, too.

Other tidbits include the fight against DDT and forcing auto manufacturers to produce vehicles which are more efficient. There are all great things that environmentalists have done. If you want to suck gas in your garage, I say find, let a man choose his fate. But when you toxify the environment, it's my business, too.

That said, just because there's a problem with our methods of the harvest and usage of energy, it doesn't mean we should give up on the search for replacements. In the meantime, use legislation to make the best of a bad situation.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/14, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalists
By michael67 on 2/13/2014 10:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder do you get a hard-on or so from trolling, wonder if you would say the same things about activist that fight pollution, if you or your kid had Asthma.

I work in the oil, and make a good living from it, but i also think that the environment is something to valuable not to take good care of it.

Because destroying it is a lot easier then fixing it.

CBC The Fifth Estate: ''Silence of the Labs'', is a good documentary about how we getting miss informed about the impact of what we do to the environment, and how the politicians are gagging and firing the messengers of information they dont wane hear.
Torrent link to doc:

This is happening the last 10 years in Canada, but spoken to a US researcher that immigrated to Norway, because the same thing happened in the US only there it even started 30 years a go.

So if people are saying that scientist cant be trusted, dont blame them but blame your politicians for gagging the one's that want to speak the truth.

And noting he was saying was hippie speak, but just commonsense, something you could use by buckets.

I understand why some people can worry about the impact on the environment, me on the other hand dont care much about some animals dieing because of a solar farm, it is a lot better then the impact of digging op oil sands, or the pollution from digging up coal and burning it.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 12:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
Asthma? Literally millions of people have died because of the DDT ban. Ooops! But that's what happens when you put the "environment" as being more important than people. Which is a classic trademark of the "environmentalist".

If I or my kid had Asthma, it would be impossible to state with any certainty air pollution was the cause wouldn't it? In fact you cannot produce me a single person who's Asthma is categorically linked to pollution, can you? Nope!

Figures, just more FUD from the Liberal green crowd. Asthma rates have continued to rise WHILE air quality has improved. Hello? Our air is cleaner than ever before in fact. Why are we even talking about air quality!?

And now who's trolling? The number of non-biased documentaries out there, especially regarding the environment, is a pitiful few.

And how are we misinformed? You can't go a goddamn day without hearing how we're headed for a man-made doomsday or a climate disaster! In fact it's become so heavy handed, nobody even cares anymore.

And our Government, who spends more than ANY country on climate change, carbon credits, clean energy subsidies etc etc, is now part of a conspiracy to "gag" scientists speaking the truth about the environment?

Sir, you are honestly nuts!

Torrent link to doc:

Sorry there's no way in hell I'm downloading a file someone who I don't know and trust linked me over the internet. Are you serious??

Of course I'm not FOR pollution. But the environmentalist movement is going overboard, getting things like CO2 classified as a "pollutant", absurd! What's next, Hydrogen? And making normal people the enemy for the car they choose and lifestyle they lead.

Go save the environment, I'm all for it, just leave me out of it!

RE: Environmentalists
By michael67 on 2/14/2014 2:57:59 AM , Rating: 2

I dont really wonder why website like those never publish who is paying there bills, i suspect the NCPA is just a lobby group paid by and used by big energy.

Man you are eating there FUD like it is candy.

Sorry there's no way in hell I'm downloading a file someone who I don't know and trust linked me over the internet. Are you serious??

A torrent link to a video file has less danger, then when you are just browsing the web, and getting infected by a infected add.

Sorry but do you even know how computers and the web works?

The download off a video file is about the same as getting a hug from a colleague or so.
Ware if i would give a link to a executable key-generator for the lattes hot game, that would be about the same as having unprotected sex met a crack whore.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 9:08:19 AM , Rating: 1
Prove it. And how is that any different than giant environmental lobby groups poisoning the well of truth?

Typical, you don't like the message, so you attack the source. Did you happen to notice WHERE their numbers were from? The US government, idiot

The link between Asthma and US air quality is easily debunked. How can Asthma rates be increasing while air quality also improves? Obviously there is something else causing it.

And yes I know how the web works. I know you don't download files, as a general rule, from people you don't trust.

RE: Environmentalists
By michael67 on 2/14/2014 1:22:40 PM , Rating: 1
Prove it. And how is that any different than giant environmental lobby groups poisoning the well of truth?

Its so simple that even a teenager understands it, just follow the money.

That "giant" environmental lobby your talking about is willing to sacrifice some of there income for a better environment.

The anti environmental lobby on the other hand are in it for the money, because less rules means more profit.

Typical, you don't like the message, so you attack the source. Did you happen to notice WHERE their numbers were from? The US government, idiot

Yeah as if you can not cherry pick the numbers you wane use to make your point out of Government numbers.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
? Benjamin Disraeli 1860

150 years ago they all ready knew you could easily manipulate numbers to make your point.

I know you don't download files, as a general rule, from people you don't trust.

Apparently not as you would have know that video file is a pretty save file to download, and even if i would think that your a asshole how deserves a virus, i would not put up a link that also other people could click on and infect those to just because i think your a ass.

And the link was to a torrent from the release group of documentary's thats bin online for 8 years.

But as you rather are paranoid then be educated, dont download it and keep getting your information from FauxNew as that is a much more reliable source of information to fuel your paranoia.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 1
You know what, you're ignorant.

There's more money in being an environmentalist than an industrialists. The environmental lobby is MASSIVE! The biggest bubble we have right now is in being "green".

This stupid stereotype you're trying to present, that the environmental lobby "sacrifices" money for a better environment proves you have a child-like naive romantic viewpoint of these people that isn't NEARLY realistic. They ARE in it for the money, and my god, there's enough money in this to make your head spin.

Yeah as if you can not cherry pick the numbers you wane use to make your point out of Government numbers.

Translation: I can't dispute the facts, or even try, so I'll settle on deflection and generalized statements that mean nothing.

You're just making wild statements with nothing to back them up. Meanwhile I'm not allowed to use our Governments own numbers, and even sources which have NO LINK at all to biased parties are dismissed offhand.

You don't want debate, you want dogma.

RE: Environmentalists
By michael67 on 2/15/2014 4:17:18 AM , Rating: 2
You don't want debate, you want dogma.

Your really beyond hope, any more argument is just a waste of my time, you dont even bother to watch the documentary, and then say that i am the one that only wants dogma. 0_o

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 9:44:41 AM , Rating: 1
Documentaries are entertainment today, NOT scientific evidence! Wtf is wrong with you?

I could find you 20 "documentaries" that support my argument. Would you believe them?

But fine, talking to you is a waste of my time as well. By the way, your spelling and grammar sucks and is painful to read anyway.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/15/2014 9:59:32 AM , Rating: 1

Here is "documentary" that proves mankind was created by aliens!!!

If you don't watch and believe this, well you're just a close minded fool and I can no longer debate with you!!!

RE: Environmentalists
By michael67 on 2/15/2014 1:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Documentaries are entertainment today, NOT scientific evidence! Wtf is wrong with you?

Even if i would come with evidence you would just say it made up by the environment lobby, and the arguments you use on the other hand are so polarized and far from realty that i think you live in a parallel universe that works on a total different set of rules then the one the rest of use in this universe live by.

I could find you 20 "documentaries" that support my argument. Would you believe them?

Depending on the source it could make me rethink my position, if it was a Fox production i would not even bother to watch, but if it ware from the BBC, i would at least look at it, and it would have a chance to change my mind.

And man if you dont even bother to watch or find out what it is, dont talk about that it is a waste of your time, only idiots dont educate them self's, and still have a big mouth that they think they know it all.

CBC The Fifth Estate: Silence of the Labs

your spelling and grammar sucks and is painful to read anyway.

Maybe because i am from a non English speaking country, my Dutch is perfect, and German and Norwegian are a lot better, my English writing is more or less self learned, wonder how you would do in a non native languish.

RE: Environmentalists
By KOOLTIME on 2/15/2014 10:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
Most poeple complain they want internet privacy, when there actually is none.

The so called Snowden leak suprised many, those are just not informed people. As privacy in today's current "internet" systems does not occur in the context majority of the world even realizes.

Quick example

ISP wont give out personal information, but that doesn't stop them from actually doing it. because the real fine print on ISP' all of them have a marketing purposes share disclaimer.

That disclaimer only pertains to the ISP, the so called marketing 3rd parties they are giving your info to, are wide open free to abuse your information any way they chose to, because the end user has no contract with said advertiser, even though the partnering media disclaimer allowed that transfer to happen.

The unregulated advertisers continually data mining your information the more you use the internet. Over time they eventually have enough to break into your personal info most poeple think are not occurring.

They have the free right to resell it as they chose also. Even if they claim they don't share it, doesn't stop them from selling it.

RE: Environmentalists
By Paj on 2/17/2014 5:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
Of course I'm not FOR pollution. But the environmentalist movement is going overboard, getting things like CO2 classified as a "pollutant", absurd! What's next, Hydrogen? And making normal people the enemy for the car they choose and lifestyle they lead.

Many compounds that are essential to life become toxic in large enough quantities. Vitamin A is a good example.

Some C02 is of course essential to biological processes. But too much of it in the environment causes an imbalance and leads to undesirable outcomes, such as greenhouse effects and ocean acidification - hence, its levels must be monitored carefully.

The fact is, modern lifestyles, if left unchecked, will quickly overcome the ability of the planet to sustain them. If everyone on the planet had the same lifestyle and per capita energy cost as the average middle class Westerner, the resources of the planet would deplete rapidly and the environment would become overstressed, possibly to the point of non-recoverability. Despite being acknowledged by major scientific bodies for some time, it has only now entered mainstream discourse.

It is the goal of environmentalists to try and curb these effects, to determine new methods of balancing the need of human progression with the needs of managing a finite resource supply.

RE: Environmentalists
By tng on 2/18/2014 10:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
Many compounds that are essential to life become toxic in large enough quantities. Vitamin A is a good example.

Other tidbits include the fight against DDT... ...all great things that environmentalists have done.

I will say that DDT is one of those things that was overused as Paj has said. It was regarded as a miracle chemical and everyone used it for everything.

Now when DDT could be used in a controlled way for malaria in Africa without adversely affecting the environment, it can't be used at all. Tens of thousands die since there is no way to control mosquitoes effectively.

Early excesses of the then ignorant has lead to hysteria about them now.

RE: Environmentalists
By Jeffk464 on 2/13/2014 11:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes reclaimer lets put the lead back in gas, get rid of all pollution controls and revel in the poisons.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 12:27:47 AM , Rating: 1
That's not what I'm saying and you know it, troll.

Have you idiots even seen the air quality numbers? Instead of being told how bad it is, you should go look for yourselves.

Our air is clean and gets cleaner all the time. Enough is enough. There's no need for any new legislation's or regulations or forced mandates. Mission accomplished!

Even if some ludicrous number of our cars were EV's, it would make a minimal impact on air quality at this point. That is fact.

RE: Environmentalists
By michael67 on 2/14/2014 3:02:52 AM , Rating: 2
That's not what I'm saying and you know it, troll .

That is what i am getting to.

And really you calling him a troll, that funny coming from you. ^_^

RE: Environmentalists
By Mint on 2/14/2014 5:08:06 AM , Rating: 2
Even if some ludicrous number of our cars were EV's, it would make a minimal impact on air quality at this point. That is fact.

If it is fact, then why don't you show proof of it?

Something like this:

Sure, air pollution in the US is not as bad as the Chinese losing 5 years of their life on average, but 200,000 premature deaths a year is still meaningful, as is the 50k+ from road transport.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 8:58:54 AM , Rating: 2
That study will be debunked like all similar ones have. Because its virtually impossible to attribute that many deaths to air quality. Flawed methodology and corellation does not equal causation.

And using peoples deaths as flagmen for their cause, ugh, such a pathetic Liberal tactic.

RE: Environmentalists
By Flunk on 2/14/2014 9:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you keep relating people who don't want to die from poisonous air to liberalism? I think you might have an issue with seeing the various shades of grey here. It's not at all a 2 sided political issue here.

Heck, this reduces reliance on foreign oil, that's something everyone wants.

RE: Environmentalists
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 9:59:32 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody wants to die from poisonous air. Thankfully the air isn't poisonous. Its the cleanest its ever been since the Industrial age.

What I resent are people using lies and hyperbole when discussing this issue. And forcing a toxic vs non-toxic premise, when the reality is degrees of cleanliness.

RE: Environmentalists
By ppardee on 2/14/2014 1:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
That largely depends on where you live. There are known-toxic components to the air in large cities. There are more cases of asthma in children who live next to freeways than those who live in the inner cities.

As far as correlation vs causation, with a large enough test sample (300 million people is large enough) you can isolate other issues like income, race and gender and limit it to environmental factors. When you compare people who are immediately adjacent to a freeway vs people who are 5 miles away and get the same results for different cities where the ONLY difference is the distance from a freeway, it is logical to assume that diesel exhaust is bad for your health.

And that's not even a huge stretch. There are harmful components in diesel exhaust.

And you're right, the air IS cleaner than it has been since the industrial revolution. And cars are healthier for people than the same number of horses would be. But cleaner doesn't mean non-toxic.

I have asthma and live in Phoenix. I am on medication, but I wheeze until I get out of the city, then the wheezing stops and starts right back up when I get back. I was on Catalina for a week and didn't need ANY medication the entire week. There are like 5 cars on Catalina. Cars make the air toxic. Denying that fact makes you look like an extremist just like the environmentalists.

RE: Environmentalists
By Mint on 2/26/2014 4:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
You still haven't showed proof of your so-called "fact".

Yeah, air quality is better than it was. That's doesn't mean people don't die due to air pollution. Deaths per million VMT are lower than ever, but are you going to tell me that means people don't die in car accidents?

RE: Environmentalists
By atechfan on 2/18/2014 9:48:04 AM , Rating: 1
Being an environmentalist doesn't automatically make one a hippie. I have strong environmental views, but I am also very much leaning into the libertarian camp. It isn't a contradiction, although you may seem to think so.

The issue with the environmental movement is that it has been hijacked by the globalist, left-wing side of politics. That is why I prefer to call myself a conservationist now, because the term environmentalist has become polluted by liberal hypocrisy. I prefer environmental policy to be determined by science, not politics. Unfortunately, that is rare.

Energy decisions should be the best balance between environmental impact and economics given current tech. Given that, fossil fuels are still the best option to power cars for most of us, but electrics do have a place as great city cars. On the other hand, fossil fuels are a terrible way to generate electricity when nuclear is an option.

RE: Environmentalists
By Mint on 2/14/2014 4:51:08 AM , Rating: 5
Environmentalists are also responsible for a huge chunk of the world's GHGs and particulate emissions with their dogmatic opposition to nuclear power but doing almost nothing to stop coal from providing half the nation's electricity until recently.

Today, humanity is missing out on over 3 decades of stalled technological progress on that front. No, nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's a hell of lot better than coal, and arguably better than wind/solar, given that they are inextricably linked to natural gas to fill in the huge gaps left behind.

RE: Environmentalists
By Jeffk464 on 2/14/2014 11:07:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you are going to use nuclear it better be perfect.

RE: Environmentalists
By tayb on 2/14/2014 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 4
Even if we had a Fukushima disaster every single year it would be better for the environment overall if we replaced all coal generated electricity with nuclear.

RE: Environmentalists
By Murloc on 2/14/2014 4:07:33 PM , Rating: 3
except DDT has proven historically useful and right now it's the best option for poor countries with malaria.

Just because the rich countries have something better and pricier it doesn't mean that poor countries can skip the steps.

Africans could skip landlines and go directly to wireless phones thanks to technology.
They still have to control malaria the old way until they can destroy the swamps, another anti-environment and anti-biodiversity thing that europeans have been doing since the romans that was fundamental for our development.

WSJ has more on the project
By Dorkyman on 2/13/2014 3:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
This morning's Wall Street Journal had more on these projects, including the fact that they are death for birds. Somehow Obama's minions sweep all those carcasses under the rug, as it were. Good thing W isn't president--press would be all over this issue if he were because W is a Bad Man and Obama's a Good Man.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By Dorkyman on 2/13/2014 4:03:33 PM , Rating: 4
BTW the recently-shut San Onofre nukes produced FIVE TIMES the power, 24/7, not just "mid-morning to mid-afternoon." They had fixable issues but the political will, this being California and all, wasn't there.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By wordsworm on 2/13/2014 7:43:33 PM , Rating: 1
W broke the Geneva convention by torturing people. Obama hasn't. That's a difference that won him a Nobel Prize.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2014 7:52:24 PM , Rating: 3
The Geneva convention applies to soldiers in formal armies, not terrorolists who no Government will claim.

Obama did nothing to earn that prize, and since then he's assassinated, tortured, supplied weapons to rebels and terrorists and murdered US citizens without due process.

Quite a man of peace.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By wordsworm on 2/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: WSJ has more on the project
By michael67 on 2/14/2014 12:45:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Obama is even worse then Bush junior, people voted for change, but he did not deliver any of his promises, and some policy's got even worse.

I really dont get why all republicans are bitching about him, he is over all there best friend.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/2014 1:06:26 PM , Rating: 1
You know what, I'm shedding big doggy tears that some fucking terrorist somewhere who wanted to kill me, got water poured over his head and wasn't allowed to sleep. Oh the horror.

By the way, do you know how Obama found out where Bin Laden was?

He tortured it out of people.

Give the man ANOTHER Nobel Prize!

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By Dorkyman on 2/14/2014 3:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh my gosh, a 9/11 Truther. Sorry pal, credibility blown to smithereens.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By Solandri on 2/15/2014 2:23:20 AM , Rating: 3
Your idiot W called it a war against terror. That's where soldiers come from. Calling them formal or nonformal combatants doesn't change the fact that the US broke those laws under Bush and should be held accountable for it.

Actually, it does change it. Most of those protections in the Geneva Convention apply to combatants who wear a uniform and emblem clearly identifying them as combatants.

You see, the Geneva Convention doesn't just try to protect soldiers. It also tries to protect civilians. An army can gain a huge tactical advantage if they can disguise themselves as civilians. But that leads to the other army shooting up civilians trying to root out the real soldiers. The Geneva Convention tries to prevent that situation, by offering most of its protections only to uniformed soldiers.

If in your zeal to indict Bush you water down those provisions so that non-uniformed combatants get the same protections, then you are indirectly responsible for the resulting additional civilian deaths in future conflicts.

RE: WSJ has more on the project
By atechfan on 2/18/2014 9:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
That was the stupidest comment I've read on hear yet. Obama was given the Nobel prize before he accomplished anything. It was the token hand-out to the token half-black dude the Dems were running. But I suppose any award that was also given to Arafat is meaningless anyway.

By Spookster on 2/13/2014 6:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
So $2.2 billion to supply 140,000 homes? That's comes to nearly $16,000 per home. Assuming they are making $2,000 a year in sales from each home per year it would take them at least 8 years before they turn a profit?

RE: So...
By FishTankX on 2/13/2014 11:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite. probably longer as I doubt they paid for the entire installation in cash. Probably 20 years, but mirrors don't really degrade and it won't have any expensive waste removal during decommissioning which probably makes it somewhat competitive with nuclear power once you factor in greenies suing to delay the project, continuing to run up financing costs, construction, fuel, decommissioning and eventual high level waste disposal.

RE: So...
By DocScience on 2/14/2014 1:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
You really think that glass mirrors in the sandy desert with blowing winds don't degrade?

Greenies sued and delayed this site as well, remember the turtles.

RE: So...
By mellomonk on 2/14/2014 9:01:03 AM , Rating: 2
Coal or natural gas plants are not cheap either. A recent coal plant built in my region cost in excess of $2bil. Not to mention it requires $mils of fuel every month to operate.

RE: So...
By Dorkyman on 2/14/2014 4:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
MUCH cheaper to build coal or gas, compared to this boondoggle. Factor of 4 or greater.

RE: So...
By jamescox on 2/18/2014 5:31:57 AM , Rating: 2
MUCH cheaper to build coal or gas, compared to this boondoggle. Factor of 4 or greater.

Once you build a thermal solar plant, continuing cost are minimal; all that is needed is a maintenance crew really. With coal or natural gas, you need a constant supply of fuel. Also, with coal, natural gas, or nuclear you may be incurring future unknown cost due to environmental damage and/or waste disposal. Nuclear plants also have the safety concerns; it isn't that accidents are that likely, it is just an accident can be catastrophic (Fukushima,Chernobyl, etc). Do we need to risk an accident, or radioactive material being stolen?

I am not against building more modern nuclear plants where necessary, but Vegas is out in the middle of a desert; why not use the solar power available? There isn't much of anything out there (animal/plant/other). I have driven through Nevada many times, and it is a lot of barren rock with some tumble-weeds. I haven't seen anything on environmental impact of these things. The space taken up isn't relevant; there is plenty of "empty" desert around there. It may be dangerous to local wild life, but that can't be much; there just isn't much out there.

By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 2/13/2014 3:35:36 PM , Rating: 1
It'd be better if they used a molten salt and some other operating fluid in a closed loop rather than depleting freshwater supplies.

Also, this plant could generate power at night with a molten salt, by keeping a large enough quantity of it hot enough to continue radiating heat (and driving that closed loop fluid, perhaps a Brayton cycle generator) for the night phase.

RE: freshwater
By The Von Matrices on 2/13/2014 6:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you're using molten salt to store energy for use at night, then by definition you need to reserve a portion of your solar intake during the day. That 400MW plant suddenly becomes a <200MW plant, and it no longer looks as viable.

Solar is a nice power source, but reporters need to call it for what it is. This is either a 150MW solar or a 400MW natural gas-solar plant.

RE: freshwater
By FishTankX on 2/13/2014 11:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
It is a closed loop. It has air powered condensers that recycle steam back into water to run through the boiler again.

By Esiuda on 2/13/2014 4:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
OK, quick google search shows 4 years ago there were 230,000 homes in the Las Vegas area, so you would need 2 of these plants at 5 square miles each, so 10 square miles of power plant just to provide for the homes in the area, not including all the apartments, business and what not. On top of that, the cost of the electricity provided is almost 3 times the amount of what a coal plant would be.

Next up is I guess everyone just goes to sleep at night, and turns off all their power! So you still need the coal plant (or better yet a Nuc!) to provide power at night. What a waste of money! and everyone ends up paying almost 3 times more for the power they use! What a scam!!!!!!

RE: bs
By jdietz on 2/13/2014 10:52:29 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot.

Coal plants can operate at 100% capacity or 10% capacity. Some nuclear plants can, too.
Peak power usage is when? Oh, that's right.

RE: bs
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 2/14/2014 11:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
Coal plants are most efficiently operated in a base load capacity, which is all-out unless under maintenance. "Throttling" coal is inefficient and stupid, which is why other technologies which have a wider range of high-efficiency operation such as gas-fired plants are used for peak load.

holy hell
By half_duplex on 2/14/2014 10:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
jeezus that's a waste of land.

RE: holy hell
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/15/2014 10:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
You won't be saying that when the aliens invade, and redirecting the sunlight with those mirrors is the only hope to defend mankind.

All I can think of is...
By ppardee on 2/14/2014 11:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
"They're taking the hobbits to Ivanpah!"

Reminds me of Ivana, Ivana Humpalot
By warezme on 2/14/2014 1:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yea baby.

Apples with apples
By mars2k on 2/17/2014 9:19:16 AM , Rating: 2
When we compare costs between solar and coal/gas/nuke how are fuel costs accounted? Are the fuel costs weighted in with what they might be over the life of any given plant?

Further, what about the additional cost of cleaning up the hidden environmental costs? How much does it cost to sequester the CO2 produced by hydrocarbons? How much does it cost to store nuclear waste for the next 10,000 or so years? Yucca Flats comes to mind, let’s ask them. How much for cleaning up the production byproducts and wasted from production of either.

The government……that would actually be all of us…..have to bare the expense of cleaning up all that. How much is it going to cost us when Freedom Industries skips out the cleanup costs at Elk River? What exactly the cost of drinking water in that part of the world.

Oh I get it, these guys carping about this are planning to move to Yucca Flats and drink water imported from Elk River, problem solved.

What about climate change?
By siconik on 2/13/2014 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 1
If climate change predictions are as dire as many of the supporters of such projects have stated, does really make sense considering that a single "climate change" driven whether event such as a hailstorm with completely destroy this installation?

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki