# Commercial Solar Electric Power



## imp

*"Nevada Solar One* is a concentrated solar power plant, with a nominal capacity of 64 MW and maximum steam turbine power output up to 72 MW net (75 MW gross), spread over an area of 400 acres (160 ha). The projected CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions avoided is equivalent to taking approximately 20,000 cars off the road annually. The project required an investment of $266 million USD,[SUP][1][/SUP] and the project officially went to operation in June 2007.[SUP][2][/SUP] Electricity production is estimated to be 134 million kilowatt hours per year.[SUP][3]"   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One

IMO, this is the way to go. No assurances can be made that water resources will make a comeback soon, meaning that the major hydroelectric facilities of the Southwest will not only under-produce, but may even STOP producing, electricity. Lake Mead, emptying through Hoover Dam, is the biggest lake, I believe, after Lake Powell. Mead's water level is down some 200 feet from it's highest level. There is NOT a helluva lot of water left in it, when considering it supplies water to almost 1.5 million users in Las Vegas, that water producing NO electric power.

The two alternatives to dams are Fossil Fueled plants, coal or gas-fired, which pollute the environment. Nuclear power production does not immediately pollute, but does so after the fact, leaving behind radioactive waste, as serious problem also.

Building more dams is folly if there is NO WATER behind them. F. F.s pollute. Nuke plants cost huge bucks to build, and take a decade or more to do so, their unpopularity notwithstanding. A third, not considered here, but non-polluting, they think, is wind power. Winds are whimsical, but the old Sol will 100% guaranteed continue to bake the desert areas relentlessly. The "Nevada Solar One" mentioned above, delivers enough electric power to completely service 28,000 homes like my own (usage 4800 kilowatt-hours per year).  

What should we do?    Imp[/SUP]


----------



## SifuPhil

We missed the early boat on solar and wind but it seems that the tech is becoming more affordable and people are finally beginning to understand and appreciate how life-saving these techs really are.

Unfortunately the oil and coal barons are still powerful.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man

Our electric utility continues to raise their rates.  Last year, the State allowed them to implement a surcharge on your electric bill if you has supplementary solar or wind power at your home.  The surcharge more than offsets any savings a homeowner might realize and, therefore, has completely stopped anyone from looking at cost cutting alternatives.

This past couple of weeks, the utility has asked for another increase in charges which would add $25 to $30 to every homeowner's utility bill.  The costs are already so high senior citizens, etc. are having a difficult time paying.  It also made headlines when the Governor asked the electric utility to donate towards paying off his past campaign debts.  The utility agreed.  So, now it is assured that this latest rate increase will slide through with no resistance at the governmental level.  When asked, the Governor just laughed it off.  Politics at its best!!!!  

The utility lobby is huge in each State and at the Federal level.  Hydroelectric power uses entirely too much water when water itself is becoming a vanishing resource.  Coal... dirty and non-renewable resource.  Nuclear... very expensive to build and could be a danger to the public.  Solar and wind.... safe and renewable.  If the politicians would tell lobbyists and those funding campaigns to go pound sand, the cost of both would begin coming down.  Won't happen.  Too many billionaires... Koch Bros, etc... have their wealth staked to non-renewable power.


----------



## BobF

Coal and oil are both capable of being used nearly clean.   Nothing as dirty as when use with no preparation.   We can go on with their usage and have no problems for the people.   As long as solar and wind remain so expensive and so unreliable we must maintain our older and available sources of power.   Our businesses and medical services can not be limited to just when the solar or windmills are working and I wonder if we could ever have enough windmills and solar successfully working to be able to meet our demands.   

Hypothetical perfection for our needs is just not sufficient or affordable with our current knowledge.


----------



## SifuPhil

Disagree, Bob. 

What are we going to do when the coal and oil runs out? And our entire infrastructure, based upon them, goes with them? How many more will die for oil? 

How is solar and wind "unreliable"? 

And the cost of using coal and oil "clean" would mean yet more price increases passed on to us ...


----------



## BobF

SifuPhil said:


> Disagree, Bob.
> 
> What are we going to do when the coal and oil runs out? And our entire infrastructure, based upon them, goes with them? How many more will die for oil?
> 
> How is solar and wind "unreliable"?
> 
> And the cost of using coal and oil "clean" would mean yet more price increases passed on to us ...



Maybe in a hundred or two hundred years when the coal and oil run out we will have something much better than our current inadequate and unreliable solar and wind generators available.   For all the years of building and spending piles of money on, we have a total of about 10% or 15% of unreliable, part time, electrical energy being generated.   Part time sure does not eliminate the necessity of keeping our current power plants working full time along side these part time efforts.   With out the technical lack to keep up due to their limited abilities, they are also unreliable when the sun goes down or the wind gets too strong or does not blow.   These sources are part time at best and inadequate when the do work.

Today the US has the ability to support ourselves using our own oil.   This is something that has been blocked by our current government.   We also have had built 'clean coal' power plants.   One in Indiana, I believe, that was shut down with no testing when Obama became President.   Others were planned but not allowed.    Just some very darned poor administration from some 'clean nuts'.

Where I live we have free installation of solar grids on the roof tops.   Who is paying for those free panels?    Some of our hidden national debt happening here?   Some of the current 18 trillion national debt?

Solar and wind generation is not so clean as some think.   When those solar panels fail, what becomes of them?    When the windmills fail, who removes them from the landscape?    Failed solar panels will likely stay on peoples roof tops and no one has decided to remove them for free.   Same as free for installing them.   Who will pay for that.   There are pictures of windmill farms abandoned and trashing out the scenery.   Why has not some one come and removed them?   Clean is only in the minds of some and not at all inclusive for all situations.


----------



## imp

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Our electric utility continues to raise their rates.  Last year,* the State allowed them to implement a surcharge on your electric bill if you has supplementary solar or wind power at your home.  The surcharge more than offsets any savings a homeowner might realize and, therefore, has completely stopped anyone from looking at cost cutting alternatives.
> *
> This past couple of weeks, the utility has asked for another increase in charges which would add $25 to $30 to every homeowner's utility bill.  The costs are already so high senior citizens, etc. are having a difficult time paying.  It also made headlines when the Governor asked the electric utility to donate towards paying off his past campaign debts.  The utility agreed.  So, now it is assured that this latest rate increase will slide through with no resistance at the governmental level.  When asked, the Governor just laughed it off.  Politics at its best!!!!
> 
> The utility lobby is huge in each State and at the Federal level.  Hydroelectric power uses entirely too much water when water itself is becoming a vanishing resource.  Coal... dirty and non-renewable resource.  Nuclear... very expensive to build and could be a danger to the public.  Solar and wind.... safe and renewable.  If the politicians would tell lobbyists and those funding campaigns to go pound sand, the cost of both would begin coming down.  Won't happen.  Too many billionaires... Koch Bros, etc... have their wealth staked to non-renewable power.



This is disgusting! The whole concept of reducing dependence on fossil fuel should be REWARDED, not PENALIZED! Sickening politics at it's worst!   imp


----------



## imp

BobF said:


> Coal and oil are both capable of being used nearly clean.   Nothing as dirty as when use with no preparation.   We can go on with their usage and have no problems for the people. *  As long as solar and wind remain so expensive and so unreliable we must maintain our older and available sources of power. *  Our businesses and medical services can not be limited to just when the solar or windmills are working and I wonder if we could ever have enough windmills and solar successfully working to be able to meet our demands.
> 
> Hypothetical perfection for our needs is just not sufficient or affordable with our current knowledge.



Bob, why do you feel solar power generation is too expensive or unreliable?  What is your stand on nuclear power generation?   imp


----------



## WhatInThe

imp said:


> This is disgusting! The whole concept of reducing dependence on fossil fuel should be REWARDED, not PENALIZED! Sickening politics at it's worst!   imp



Almost all utilities in the US are big private corporations or owned by one. With state and even federal regulators being a rubber stamp to their whims, wishes and desires. Every now and then the regulators put on the illusion of a fight but in the end the utilities or should I say the corporations will get their way. 

Not to divert in states like Florida they have completely deregulated utilities like the phone companies with ATT, the old ma bell spearheading that deregulation.

The surcharge on self produced power has been there for decades. Some say if one should be constantly hooked up to outside power-just in case. They get around this by saying proper legal living conditions include working utilities. It's one of those fine print laws that the power lobby snuck in decades ago because they knew people weren't thinking solar, ahead or it would even be feasible.


----------



## imp

BobF said:


> .....Solar and wind generation is not so clean as some think.   When those solar panels fail, what becomes of them?    When the windmills fail, who removes them from the landscape?*    Failed solar panels will likely stay on peoples roof tops and no one has decided to remove them for free*.   Same as free for installing them.   Who will pay for that.   There are pictures of windmill farms abandoned and trashing out the scenery.   Why has not some one come and removed them?   Clean is only in the minds of some and not at all inclusive for all situations.



Bob, I'm not talking about individually residential-installed solar panels; in fact, I am largely opposed to them. What we want to investigate via discussion is the _commercial scale _generation of power using solar energy. Nevada Solar One, briefly described in the OP, has operated successfully for 8 years, is unobtrusive, produces zero pollutions of any sort, has virtually _no moving parts_, AND, derives it's energy from burning hydrogen 92 million miles from the Earth. It works. How can we deny that more such use should be implemented?   imp


----------



## imp

WhatInThe said:


> Almost all utilities in the US are big private corporations or owned by one. With state and even federal regulators being a rubber stamp to their whims, wishes and desires. Every now and then the regulators put on the illusion of a fight but in the end the utilities or should I say the corporations will get their way.
> 
> Not to divert in states like Florida they have completely deregulated utilities like the phone companies with ATT, the old ma bell spearheading that deregulation.
> 
> The surcharge on self produced power has been there for decades. Some say if one should be constantly hooked up to outside power-just in case. They get around this by saying proper legal living conditions include working utilities. It's one of those fine print laws that the power lobby snuck in decades ago because they knew people weren't thinking solar, ahead or it would even be feasible.



And what you're saying describes full-well the reasons for thinking twice before installing one's own residential solar power. Where whacky local laws have not screwed up the true scenario, single residences actually can and do run their electric meters BACKWARDS, putting power back into the grid, reducing their purchased power bill.   imp


----------



## BobF

SifuPhil said:


> Disagree, Bob.
> 
> What are we going to do when the coal and oil runs out? And our entire infrastructure, based upon them, goes with them? How many more will die for oil?
> 
> How is solar and wind "unreliable"?
> 
> And the cost of using coal and oil "clean" would mean yet more price increases passed on to us ...



Solar and wind are unreliable today and in the future.    Solar is only good for daylight hours and often not even for all day light hours due to clouds part time and for all daylight hours under clouds.   Clean coal and clean oil have both been processed and are possible without so much political nonsense that is going on.   Sun effort is only good for a small part of our needs.   Wind is only good for some days with enough wind to run the windmills but if too much wind then the windmills must be shut off for protection.


----------



## SifuPhil

BobF said:


> ...    Solar is only good for daylight hours and often not even for all day light hours due to clouds part time and for all daylight hours under clouds.



You might want to do a bit of research into solar technology - that isn't how it works. In the early days, yes - but not now.



> Clean coal and clean oil have both been processed and are possible without so much political nonsense that is going on.



I agree that politics dirties up everything, but here in PA I've seen the effects of coal mining and coal burning and how the companies are loathe to implement the clean-burning technologies. Also, there is no way of getting that coal without ripping up the earth, destroying habitat and water supplies in the process.



> Sun effort is only good for a small part of our needs.   Wind is only good for some days with enough wind to run the windmills but if too much wind then the windmills must be shut off for protection.



Combining a reduction of our "needs" (more like "wants") with more popular support for solar tech would solve our problems. That tech is constantly being improved, no thanks to the government, and more efficient appliances along with more conservation-minded citizens is I believe the answer.

I'm not really "up" on wind tech but I believe it utilizes some of the same principles as solar, i.e. gather during the windy times and store for the calm times.


----------



## BobF

If you folks can not see that solar and wind are really expensive and only part time, you are too locked into thinking all the clean stories are facts and not distortions.   Go into *WikiPedia* and look for more data.   Find the real amounts of solar is being generated for acres and acres of panels that will only support a very small part of the population.   Do the same with the wind generators.   Also for only a small population.   All the time these ideas are working they still keep real power plants operating and waiting to be tapped.   It is good to have ideas but let us not refuse to see how we must also keep proven technology going till a valid replacement gets up to speed and can replace what we have on hand.

Here is one link to wikipedia.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

It shows there has been great progress since solar started and that still newer ideas are being added.   There may be usage charts but I did not see them.   There are plenty of charts there and I am sure that if you read these pages you will understand that success is only in a handful around the world.   So alternative power is often needed, or do without.

I am not against finding and developing good alternatives to what we have now and will have for many long years yet.   We are only in the beginnings of better ideas.


----------



## imp

Bob, there is enough desert area in the Mohave to likely support enough solar power production to sustain the entire U.S.! It's not a question at all of insufficient area available; nor is it a question of insufficient sunlight, we get 300+ days per year of complete sunshine. Some cloud cover does restrict output, and _some _is the norm over complete overcast. There is more than one way to secure viable electric power from sunlight, I'll discuss tomorrow one of the most asinine Engineering atrocities I've heard of yet, in solar. 

How about the fact that we get power thusly with NO EMISSIONS? That alone does not cause a little tingle for you?    imp


----------



## Josiah

A modest carbon tax to compensate for the harm fossil fuels cause to the environment would quickly make solar, wind and several other forms of alternative energy the most cost effective. And once market forces come into play the switch away from fossil fuels will happen much more rapidly than most people think. The big impediment comes from the fossil fuel industry and the political party that is in their pocket. It really bothers me to think that the government still subsidizes the carbon based energy industries.


----------



## BobF

imp said:


> Bob, there is enough desert area in the Mohave to likely support enough solar power production to sustain the entire U.S.! It's not a question at all of insufficient area available; nor is it a question of insufficient sunlight, we get 300+ days per year of complete sunshine. Some cloud cover does restrict output, and _some _is the norm over complete overcast. There is more than one way to secure viable electric power from sunlight, I'll discuss tomorrow one of the most asinine Engineering atrocities I've heard of yet, in solar.
> 
> How about the fact that we get power thusly with NO EMISSIONS? That alone does not cause a little tingle for you?    imp



Not sure your idea will receive much attention of the indian nations or park system owners of much of the desert lands you think would be adequate.   First place is I don't think your estimate is accurate.   We have one of those power farms in Arizona and it takes quite a lot of acres and the power goes to California, not locally used.   Too much energy going to the dream world but till that is developed we still have today's needs and processes to take care of.


----------



## BobF

Josiah said:


> A modest carbon tax to compensate for the harm fossil fuels cause to the environment would quickly make solar, wind and several other forms of alternative energy the most cost effective. And once market forces come into play the switch away from fossil fuels will happen much more rapidly than most people think. The big impediment comes from the fossil fuel industry and the political party that is in their pocket. It really bothers me to think that the government still subsidizes the carbon based energy industries.



Simple, they do work and do not poison the air as some claim.    That was the proof that Obama refused to run when he came into office.    Coal was not coming from Pennsylvania tunnel mines.    It was coming from western states strip mines and they had requirements to come back and clean up and fix up after done digging coal.   Pretty good system shut down by a non productive government.


----------



## imp

Bob, your points about daylight hour operation only are well-taken; however, you are missing a very, very, important fact: Despite the need for lighting during nighttime hours, the great bulk of electrical power needed, especially in the arid and semi-arid areas, is during the daytime, when air conditioning loads, as well as commercial products manufacturing plants, create much higher daytime electric power demand.  imp


----------



## imp

BobF said:


> Not sure your idea will receive much attention of the indian nations or park system owners of much of the desert lands you think would be adequate.   First place is I don't *think* your estimate is accurate. *  We have one of those power farms in Arizona and it takes quite a lot of acres and the power goes to California, not locally used. *  Too much energy going to the dream world but till that is developed we still have today's needs and processes to take care of.



THINK doesn't  cut the mustard, Bob. Give us FACTS why you THINK any estimate to be accurate or not. All one need do is drive across any of the expanses of open desert in the Southwest to see that an enormous area is desolately unproductive, regardless of it's ownership. 

Why would it matter to you WHERE the solar-produced power is delivered? If you live in the area where the plant is located, you should rather be GLAD of the fact that it is not a polluting energy-production facility! Desert-located solar facilities obviously cannot deliver to "local users": there are none.  imp


----------



## imp

If it's OK with Members, I am planning to carry this discussion over to a new thread which emphasizes some of the NEGATIVE aspects of the topic. Many folks are likely unaware of this, and it entertains the consideration whether we should sacrifice natural wildlife in order to meet energy needs.    imp


----------



## BobF

imp said:


> THINK doesn't  cut the mustard, Bob. Give us FACTS why you THINK any estimate to be accurate or not. All one need do is drive across any of the expanses of open desert in the Southwest to see that an enormous area is desolately unproductive, regardless of it's ownership.
> 
> Why would it matter to you WHERE the solar-produced power is delivered? If you live in the area where the plant is located, you should rather be GLAD of the fact that it is not a polluting energy-production facility! Desert-located solar facilities obviously cannot deliver to "local users": there are none.  imp



I used *THINK* as that is all I have to go on.   Our deserts are already owned by others as I named.   Should they just drop their ownership and allow the lands to be used by some unknown commercial operation.   Have you looked at the solar plant in Arizona and see how big it is and how limited its output is?   It is not much but part of  a city output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

Look at this and multiply its size and output for the country.   I don't have that time and think it is not going to work so well anyway.


----------



## AZ Jim

What happened to WOMAN POWER?  *background music "I am woman" (Helen Reddy '74)


----------



## Josiah

OK the drawbacks of alternative energy. The one I'm most familiar with is bird and bat kills caused by collisions with the blades of wind turbines. Here is a link to an article which talks about solutions to this problem. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...BRobRN1hKwTQx4w6w&sig2=Om07RVsj415QDzv3jY_lHA


----------



## imp

*Area Available*



BobF said:


> Have you looked at the solar plant in Arizona and see how big it is and how limited its output is?   It is not much but part of  a city output......



Okay, Okay, then. Consider this:

*Facts on the Arizona Solar Industry*

There are currently more than *394 solar companies* at work throughout the value chain in Arizona, *employing 9,200 people*.
In 2014, Arizona *installed 247 MW of solar electric capacity*, ranking it fifth nationally.
The *2,101 MW of solar energy currently installed* in Arizona ranks the state second in the country in installed solar capacity.  There is enough solar energy installed in the state to power 294,000 homes.
In 2014, *$624 million* was invested on solar installations in Arizona.
Average installed residential and commercial photovoltaic system *prices in Arizona have fallen by 12% in the last year*.  National Prices have also dropped steadily -- by 8% from last year and 49% from 2010.






"Arizona is one of four states in which all utility-scale electric generating capacity installed in 2014 came from solar"

Bob, a point I'd like to make is, take the State of Nevada, for example, 111,000 square miles in area, LOTS of unused land, much of it arid desert. Of that total, 95,000 (86%) is NOT owned by Native Americans, private concerns or companies: It is claimed by the U.S. Government. That's 61,000,000 acres, Bob! At 400 acres per solar installation, there's room for 152,000 solar plants. Stretching the thought, but the numbers are real. There's PLENTY of land available.    imp


----------



## BobF

Well Imp.    You are certainly not making any sense at all for me.   Why should we just take over massive areas of land for something that is really not doing what it is supposed to do, and do it in some sort of panic time.

Best we let this change over be tried and proven before we take our money and waste it on something that might be obsolete in a few years.   

You posted a lot about Arizona solar systems.   I would like to know who is paying for these installations around here.   I keep getting mailers or phone calls wanting to put solar on my roof absolutely free.   Who is paying for all this.   If it is government money it should be stopped immediately as nobody I know ever voted for this to happen.   I really hate the way they look too.

Maybe in a few years we will really have some breakthroughs of power generation that will make this stuff look like infancy efforts.   Moving for solutions is the way to go as 200 years of coal and oil is not that far away either.   No reason to run into this as time seems to correct our mistakes as we take our time to do and learn.


----------



## imp

Bob, all I try to show is that, contrary to your mention of lack of adequate land area to build solar installations, there appears to be plenty of "place" for it. Sorry if it sounds s though I condone or recommend it, that I cannot, for I, too, do not know what the "down the road" consequences will be. But I DO believe, and cannot see how there can be any way to effectively berate photoelectric generation, as the concept dates back to Albert Einstein, and components which accomplish it have been around for years and years. Why then has it not been done sooner? Easy. Fossil fuel producers have fought solar every step of the way. When silicon cell awareness became widespread, Atlantic Richfield Co. bought existing manufacturing rights, and shelved them. Those patent rights have finally expired, leaving the oil companies no easy way to thwart solar any longer.

*"nobody I know ever voted for this to happen"  *It isn't always the case that popular vote is involved in presentation of new public effort. I suppose it IS true that public money is being used to some extent to promote solar, especially in the "sun states", but the real, commercial efforts, that I see happening now, are backed by Private utility money, such companies being _regulated _by government, but _run _privately. Personally, I have no firm opinion one way or the other, regarding residential installations and how/why they are backed or encouraged. I adhere to the thought that the guys who successfully build, operate, and keep running, the machinery which keeps my lights on and PC working, know best what they are doing.    imp


----------



## BobF

One important thing to do now is to allow the 'clean coal' operations to continue.   If it works as proposed and tested, there will be no poisoned air from the use of 'clean coal' processes.   No need to stop using a proven method of generating power if clean. Stop using known and clean methods while trying to develop another means of power generation is not a good idea.   Keep on working on newer ways of generating power, in 200 years we will need to have new ways developed and working successfully.   But then, in 200 years power generation of any kind may just be memories for the few that do remain.


----------



## Don M.

Solar power is still a "work in progress".  There have been huge strides in recent years, and the day will come when it is an economically viable option for coal, etc., power generation.  In the interim, we still need coal, nuclear, etc., to avoid brownouts and high electric bills while the technology is being perfected.  I kind of like the idea of huge mirrors focusing sunlight on a central tower, to generate high pressure steam...which can be stored to continue power generation during the night, and on cloudy days.  

Shutting down coal fired plants without having a source available to replace them is Not a good idea.


----------

