backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by SPOOFE.. on Dec 3 at 1:57 AM


A map of the planned 250 MW solar power plant, showing preserved land (green) and installation area (blue).  (Source: NRG Solar/SunPower)

The plant will be located roughly halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, just south of California's Bay Area.  (Source: Wikipedia)
Plant would take around 15-20 years to break even if electricity was sold at coal power rates

If there's one thing critics and proponents of solar power alike can agree upon, it's that solar power, like any commodity, will go down in price when it is produced at a greater volume.  Recently announced plants, like a 280 mega-watt (MW) installation in the Arizona desert go a long way towards achieving that sort of volume increase.

As does a new 250 MW installation in San Luis Obispo County, California which was formally announced this week.  Construction on the new plant will commence next year and is expected to create 350 construction jobs.

San Luis Obispo is a coastal county that is relatively rural and lightly populated by Californian standards.  It's roughly halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the state's biggest cities.

The new plant will be a joint venture between NRG Solar, Inc. and SunPower Corp. -- two veteran solar power firms (SunPower, alone, will have installed over 1.5 GW of solar power by the year's end).  NRG Solar is expected to pitch in $450M USD over the four year launch period.  NRG will own the plant, it is basically contracting SunPower to design, build, and operate the plant.

The plant will begin producing electricity in late 2011.  By 2012 to 2013 it is expected to reach full capacity, as construction completes.  The plant is expected to provide enough power for 100,000 households.

The new plant is named the "California Valley Solar Ranch". 

NRG Solar is seeking government loans from the U.S. Department of Energy to initially finance the construction.  While U.S. President Barack Obama recently handed out $1.85B USD in grants to solar power projects, the new installation likely will not receive any of this money.

Securing a government loan is critical to the NRG and SunPower's plan.  States Howard Wenger, president of the utility and power plants business group at SunPower, "The DOE is playing a critical leadership role in supporting renewable energy that provides economic and environmental benefits, as well as a secure, stable energy supply in the U.S."

The project has been in the works for the last two years.  It is expected to be operational for at least 25 years.

Challenges to the plant's success remain.  Currently environmental activists in California are vigorously resisting large solar and wind installations, which they fear will damage fragile ecosystems.  They have filed lawsuits to try to block similar projects.

The California Valley Solar Ranch project may placate these critics, thanks to the 2,399 acres it sets aside as a wildlife habitat.  The plant and associated facilities are expected to occupy 1,966 acres of land.

Another challenge is the underlying economics.  While the California Public Utilities Commission has agreed to buy 25 years worth of power from the installation, likely at an inflated price, it remains to be seen exactly how much money the plant will make.  Coal power costs around $0.06-$0.08 USD per kilowatt-hour, so if the solar plant's power was sold at an equivalent rate, it would take around 15 to 20 years for the plant to break even.  Thanks to large markups to alternative energy power, though, it should break even much sooner, boosting NRG Solar and SunPower.  Nonetheless, some consumers may be unhappy with paying this kind of markup so that their power can be "greener".

Still, it's common knowledge that you have to invest up front to gain access to new technology.  And with large scale installations like this new one in California and the currently developing one in Arizona, the cost per kilowatt hour of solar power in the U.S. should fall over the next few years.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Time for change
By kattanna on 12/1/2010 2:10:20 PM , Rating: 2
you have a link showing your wild claim?


RE: Time for change
By CowKing on 12/1/2010 11:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/3HtjIb/1bog.org/file...

Here you are madam. Not specifically the exact thing you were asking for, but renewables all have relatively the same amount of subsidies.


RE: Time for change
By kattanna on 12/2/2010 11:22:45 AM , Rating: 2
wow... thats so full of lose

im guessing their getting their 2 decades from something like this in wikipedia? even though it states 37 years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

quote:
At the current global total energy consumption of 15.7 terawatts,[67] there is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 37 years


only problem with that is they are talking about powering everything from coal. that means no hydro, no natural gas, no oil.. LOL not exactly likely oil is going to run out tomorrow and we have to turn to making gas out of coal now is it?

and then there is little LOL gem

quote:
Coal couldn't compete with wood, steam or watermills a an energy source without subsidies.


just how stupid are people who actually believe this total BS. learn some GD history would you. The world turned from wood because we were destroying the worlds forests. when we discovered coal, it was rapidly adopted because it was a cheaper and far more efficient fuel source then wood.

steam? LOL thats so dumb im not even going to comment on that one further

oh.. and for future reference, its SIR


RE: Time for change
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2010 1:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 37 years

Another bit of trivia they don't mention in those sorts of cites is "... at current market prices". There are seams of coal that can't be accessed without the resultant product costing considerably more than it currently does. However, as the "easy" (or "easier") deposits run out, the fuel becomes scarcer and its price goes up... suddenly, those un-mineable seams become cost-effective to tap, and GASP! we have more coal again!

It's a diminishing returns game, not a hard-and-fast line where coal just suddenly disappears forever.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki