World's Largest Photovoltaic Project Planned in Nevada

[jpak]

http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsNAPR611.htm

Powered by Renewables (PBR) of Nevada announced today it will partner with SunEdison of Maryland to develop the world's largest solar photovoltaic project in Nevada.

The 18 Megawatt project almost doubles what is currently the world's largest PV project (10MW) located in Germany. PBR and SunEdison will develop a total of 36 MWs of PV projects in Nevada, enough energy to power 36,000 homes.

Construction in Clark County is expected to begin in July and at other sites in early 2007.

"I'm really pleased that PBR and SunEdison are teaming up to develop a world-class solar project using Nevada's unrivaled solar resources," said U.S. Senator Harry Reid. "These are the kinds of ventures we hope to repeat across the West, and the nation, as part of our drive for energy independence by 2020."

<more>

note: Portugal is constructing two large PV farms (64 MW and 116 MW), and Germany is constructing an 80 MW PV farm - this "world record" won't last long....

[NVMojo]

1. the hot desert of southern Nevada has got to be the right place for this!

[NNadir]

2. Wow, this is great.

This 18 MW plant, seeing as it's in the desert, will probably have a high capacity loading, probably close to 30 percent. Since 1 megawatt at 100% capacity loading is 31.5576 TJ (terajoules) and there's a whopping 18 of 'em here, this plant should produce, at 30% capacity loading, about 170 TJ per year.

According to these guys selling biomass, http://www.northwoods.org.uk/c/home/guidance_&_information/biomass_conversion_tables every terajoule of the current peak loading fuel, natural gas, accounts to 14.4 tons of carbon. Therefore this plant will save 2,450 tons of carbon, or, converting to carbon dioxide my multiplying by (44/12) about 9000 tons of carbon dioxide.

According to these fellows and gals at the energy information agency, the US emmitted 5.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2003: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

The world as a whole emitted 25 billion tons.

Thus this plant will help us with 3.6 ten millionths of a solution to the problem of global climate change.

Every little bit counts. This is a source of great happiness.

[jpak]

3. Wow, why am I not surprised by this response

Unlike the 6 new nuclear plants that will be funded by a $12 billion taxpayer-subsidized-GOP-slush-fund (that's $2 billion for each reactor that pundits claim can be built for $2 billion a piece), this project is privately owned and privately funded.

...and unlike the 73,000 tons of spent reactor fuel forced upon the State of Nevada by federal government, The People of Nevada welcome THIS development....

...a source of happiness indeed....

[NNadir]

4. I wasn't discussing mysticism in Nevada. I was talking about scale.

I contend that scale is important. Maybe this is wrong, maybe I should slobber all over myself with praise, but I take global climate change seriously. Judging from the number of posts here about melting glaciers, unusual weather events, etc, I believe other posters here do as well.

Here is the size of the goal of people who care about global climate change: 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Personally I don't care how human beings chip away at this 25 billion tons, so long as they do so.

Energy solutions that are not on scale can devolve into mysticism and complacency, but I have no idea about the attitudes of the builders of this plant.

They may acknowledge the seriousness of global climate change, or they may not. I have no idea.

I'm not against this solar PV plant. I'm not protesting it. I have no reason whatsoever to oppose it. I often point out that solar PV is known to have less external cost than any fossil fuel. That is why I often link this website: http://www.externe.info/results.html

More power to the people of Nevada with their new solar PV plant. I'm glad they've done their part to eliminate 3.6 ten-millionths of the global climate change crisis. They are to be praised for their part, however tiny.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NNadir]

8. Many people do these sorts of things.

They are ineffective apparently. The emission of global warming gases is increasing.

In the period between 2002 and 2003 world emissions of carbon dioxide increased by 700 million tons. This can be shown by use of the following spreadsheet (which I have previously linked): http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls Since this information is in a spreadsheet form, arithmetic calculations can easily be accomplished directly. The operation required here is subtraction, and it involves the use of the data (at the bottom of the page) in the 2003 and 2002 columns. One chooses an empty cell, types in the "=" symbol then one clicks on the "total" cell for 2003 (25,162.07 million tons), then types in the "-" symbol and then clicks on the total for 2002 (24,464.92 million tons) and voila the answer, 697.14 million tons appears when you click on any other cell.

I would certainly love it if tiny actions could sum to arrest the problem, but they have not done so. As people who have taken introductory calculus courses are aware, summations of infinitesimal quantities can be large or they can be small. To be considered large in the current question, the unit of measure should be at least in 100's of millions of tons of carbon dioxide to be appreciable.

I advise all people from jumping into complacency because of the latest bit of wishful thinking they have read about on the internet.

The issue of global climate is serious. Many people are suggesting that the matter is actually worse than is indicated by the earlier models. Therefore we need to starkly face the issue that whatever is being done now is not enough.

[NNadir]

6. Wow. Nevada to spend 3 billion dollars for two 750 MW coal plants.

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Rising costs of natural gas are driving southern Nevada's main electric utility to seek a nearly 24 percent rate increase, company officials said.

In documents submitted Tuesday to the state Public Utilities Commission, Nevada Power Co. sought a $436 million rate increase that it said would raise a typical customer's average monthly bill $30.62 a month, to $158.50 by August.

"Prices for natural gas have skyrocketed to unprecedented levels across the nation over the past year," Walter Higgins, chairman and chief executive of Nevada Power parent company Sierra Pacific Resources, said in a statement.

The rate increase request reflected costs already incurred by the Las Vegas-based utility, Higgins said, plus estimated higher prices it expects to pay this year for fuel and power on the open market...

...The parent company, which also owns Sierra Pacific Power Co. of Reno, this month proposed spending $3 billion to build twin 750 megawatt coal-burning power plants near Ely and a transmission line to Las Vegas.

The proposal would reduce the utility's reliance on natural gas. If approved, it is not expected to begin generating power until 2011.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2006/jan/18/011810050.html

Now this is happy news too, since the people of Nevada are obsessed with energy "waste." Apparently they are very fond of the kind of waste you breathe, and prefer them to insoluble solids.

One is surprised to learn that Nevada would be building 1500 megawatts of coal capacity, since they are also building the "world's largest" solar PV plant. Surely they are against global climate change in Nevada, aren't they? After all, they are already sufficiently hot, aren't they?

According to NevadaPower's website, http://www.nevadapower.com/energy_issues/where/south_nv/ Nevada Power produces 37% of its Southern Nevada Power using natural gas, and 63% from coal.

(I remark that I oppose generation of energy using coal and natural gas.)

They also buy some power from the government subsidized Hoover Dam, a famous structure in Southern Nevada that keeps too much water from flowing into Mexico, since the Mexicans don't need it as much as we do.

For reasons that have nothing to do with me, Nevada Power doesn't mention how much power it buys from renewable sources.

It does appear that in 2005, Nevada produced 33,048 thousand megawatt-hours (0.117 exajoules) of electricity. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epmxlfile1_6_b.xls

The 170 TJ produced by this new solar PV plant should, therefore, produce 0.14% of Nevada's power therefore.

The two new coal plants, which will probably run continuously at near 100% of capacity loading, will increase capacity by nearly 40%.

Nevada coal plants released 22.4 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2002. There is talk of building CO2 waste dumps in Nevada, but I have no idea if they are serious or if these dumps would work: http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/r51.pdf. The current procedure for dumping 22.4 million tons of carbon dioxide coal waste is to dump it in the air. No one seems to worry very much about the annual dumping of this waste (never mind the ton of ash, mine slag, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and fly ash). I note that this 22.4 million tons of annual waste for Nevada alone outstrips in mass the entire inventory of spent fuel from nuclear reactors for the entire history of the industry in the entire United States by a factor of 300. Time weighted over 40 years, on a mass basis, Nevada alone is prepared to outstrip the entire United States by a factor of 1200. This, apparently, passes for wisdom.

http://www.nbmg.unr.edu/dox/r51.pdf

If I lived in Nevada, I would be begging for nuclear power plants, as loudly as I can, just as I do in New Jersey, but that is my opinion. The citizens of Nevada can do what they like, since technical issues - it is sometimes alleged - should be determined by public opinion polls. Public perception certainly outweighs safety, as almost every lemming knows. It is perfectly appropriate to kill yourself just as long as you are unaware of what, exactly, you are doing.

I would also be in favor of solar and wind power to displace the peak requirements now met by natural gas.

[jpak]

7. And Duke Power (who wants to build one of ChimpCo's new nukes)

Is building 2,200+ MW of new fossil-fired capacity...

http://www.platts.com/Magazines/POWER/Power%20News/2005/070705_10.xml

Guess they ain't intrested in a'fighten global warming.

Looks like they just want taxpayers to build them a new nucular plant....

on edit: ....and looks like ChimpCo is going to put a big 'ol transmission line to distribute ex'o'joules of coal-fired eeeelectricity from Appalachia and the Midwest to NJ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x41292

[NNadir]

9. Whatever. They are not building solar plants.

The reason is economic.

Economics is an important issue in addressing global climate change.

I often say that I would be perfectly happy to have all the money spent on the war in Iraq spent on nuclear power plants. My model for building nuclear power plants would be that like the Tennessee Valley Authority, a successful New Deal program that actually has built nuclear power plants.

I regard the problem of global climate change as a serious one and I support government intervention world wide. Many governments world wide are promoting nuclear power, and 178 plants are now in various stages of construction and consideration. Many involve governments.

[jpak]

10. Yes ChimpCo should own and operate new thousands of nucular plants

Taxpayers should pay for them and get charged whatever ChimpCo and their cronies want to charge them for the electricity they produce.

They can site the plants where they like

and reprocessing plants where they like

and MOX fuel fabrication plants where they like

and spent fuel repositories where they like

the Greenies and NIMBY's be damned.

A hearty stiff arm salute to that concept....

And please tell us how wonnerful TVA's nuclear program is....

:rofl:

[NNadir]

11. I have previously addressed the nature of logical fallacies. To repeat:

I reject the notion that by saying "Bush" and/or "Cheney" in the same sentence as "nuclear" proves anything about the role of nuclear power in addressing global climate change.

As I understand the purpose of this thread, it is to applaud to 170 TJ to be provided by the Nevada solar PV plant. I have been quite willing to applaud this capacity while duly noting its scale. I believe that my numbers are unimpeachable, but apparently they are not the issue here. The issue has become, for some reason (not initiated by me), nuclear power.

I consider it my environmental duty to correct misapprehensions on the subject and to point out the nature of problematic arguments relating to nuclear power, since I regard nuclear power as essential in confronting global climate change.

Although I do understand why nuclear opponents keep appealing to logical fallacies, I have covered the weakness of the argument "Guilt by Association" many times here. Interested parties may refer to my oft linked site on the subject:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html

I particularly like the form of the argument that I developed in earlier similar posts and therefore am amused and pleased to repeat the form yet again:

1. "Adolf Hitler liked Dogs."
2. "Nicolai Ceausescu liked dogs."
3. "George W. Bush likes dogs."
4. "Adolf Hitler, Nicolai Ceausescu and George W. Bush are all examples of evil men."
5. "Therefore liking dogs is evil."

1, 2, 3, and 4 are all true statements, but #5 does not follow from them and is obviously untrue.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1541707.html?menu=news.quirkies.animaltales

I note that the majority of the new nuclear reactors either under construction (24), ordered (41) or proposed (113) in the world, 165 of them in total to be exact, are being built in countries that do not conduct their government in the interest of George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Only 13 new reactors are proposed here. It is not really enough in my opinion, but I am happy that American energy executives have recognized that their nuclear assets are their best assets, producing energy at the lowest prices with minimal environmental impact. I reject the notion that they are being built for Cheney and Bush, noting that many tens of thousands of highly trained, highly competent and highly educated nuclear professionals have worked for many decades to obviate nuclear's huge advantages. That they have succeeded is a measure of hard work and the high achievement skills that once characterized the United States, and hopefully, can again in a future superior to our doleful present.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm

To the extent that the Bush administration has participated in this outcome, they have ameliorated the disastrous impact of their disastrous rule.

Most of the nuclear power plants that are proposed in the United States are being built where existing nuclear power plants already operate. In some communities, such as Oswego, New York, the citizens actively lobbied to have the plants built there. Here are two of many links to the subject that are available.

http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050626/NEWS02/506260355/1020/NEWS04

http://news10now.com/content/all_news/?ArID=42793&SecID=83

Many people have predicted the demise of the nuclear industry citing internationally rejected arguments such as the depletion of uranium, accidents, so called "nuclear waste" etc. Again, these have all been dismissed and are now considered to be of historical interest only, since they have proved to be as supportable as the argument that "Liking dogs is evil."

Personally, I would be thrilled to have a nuclear plant in my community, since I am very actively concerned about global climate change.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Fortunatley...

Chimpco does not rule the Earth. Those of us NOT in the US can do what we like... Which is why most most new nukes aren't in the US, but are in the rest of the world that can't afford to piss away money on insignificant solar installations.

[bananas]

14. Isn't NZ still a nuclear-free zone?

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Yeah, we still burn coal.

The driving force behind NZ staying nuke-free is the N-weapons vs. N-power blurring: Sitting in the S. Pacific with a number of glassy atolls in our back yard gives the population an even more biased view of the N-word than usual. A single 2Gw nuke plant could make our electricity 100% emission-free, but carries a load of social and political baggage with it: Any government that started that off would not be re-elected for another term.

There is still a chance that NZ might make it anyway, since the generating backbone is hydro and wind-farms are popping up like mushrooms at the moment. We'll see

I've mentioned before that NZ is a playground for alternative power generation, as it has lots of wind, sun, waves, tides and volcanism to play with, but we still burn coal for cheap power: If we can't make it, no-one can - and even if we do, you probably still can't :)


None of which covers transport, BTW: we have lots of horses if that counts....

[amandabeech]

13. Frankly, I'm surprised that they are not using solar thermal.

Nevada is hot and sunny. Heat degrades the output of PV, but helps or does not harm most solar thermal.

As to all these new fossil fuel plants, I just wonder how much consideration was given to actually obtaining the fuel. Lack of mining equipment and transportation bottlenecks seem to have put a limit on western coal, and transportation is an issue with Eastern and Midwestern coal if such coal is to be moved far.

And forget natural gas. WE need all the supplies we can get for space heating and chemical manufacturing.

What we need and what I think everyone would agree with is a massive conservation program. Of course, that will not happen, at least with * in charge.

[NNadir]

16. Solar thermal technology seems to be excellent from all accounts.

The world's largest solar plants of any type are the Southern California solar thermal plants.

I believe that the Stirling plant mentioned here by other posters will be on the order of 500MW peak.

This is a decent sized plant, and should prevent the burning of much natural gas during peak loading hours in the American Southwest.

[amandabeech]

17. Since Global Warming may dry out further U.S. land west of the

Mississippi, solar thermal may eventually find even more satisfactory locales.

[NNadir]

18. You have a point.

Please understand that I do not wish for this outcome however.

[Oerdin]

19. The Imperial Valley

Plant should be a very good facility. Imperial county is right in the middle of the desert and recieves amoung the highest number of sunny days per year in the world so it is hard to think of a better place to build a solar plant especially since it's target market (San Diego) is under 100 miles away. It will require that a new powerline be run across Anza Borrego Desert State Park (an undeveloped wilderness area) but the new powerline would also be able to supply San Diego and Orange counties with geothermal power which is also in the Imperial Valley. I'd like to see the powerline put in underground so that it doesn't spoil the views with in the state park though Sempre Energy is resisting that idea.

[NNadir]

20. The Imperial Valley has excellent energy potential.

A month or so ago, I waxed romantic about it in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=37366

[rfkrfk]

21. do you have a link?

to the supposed 500 MW installation?

I kinda don't believe it.

[NNadir]

22. Here are some. One can always google "solar thermal" too.

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/breaking_news.htm

http://www.envirolink.org/articles/apr97-7.html

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/renewable/basics/solarthermal/thermal.html

http://www.eere.energy.gov/troughnet/deployed.html


Some plants were financial failures for their builders but the plants have continued to operate profitably under new ownership.

[rfkrfk]

23. thanks for posting those links

I don't necessarily believe it will ever happen, 500 MW,
on the other hand, you have to start somewhere

[NNadir]

28. Most solar thermal plants perform as designed. They have low capacity

loading, typically less than 30% (because the sun is available about that much) unless they are natural gas hybrids, but they do perform quite nicely as peak loading systems.

As evidence, I note that the plants operating since the early 1990's are considered assets. It is true that the company that built them, Luz, went bankrupt, but the assets were acquired and continued to operate. The Luz-built plants are still operating.

They address a very important niche, peak load supply. The alternative is the very dirty and environmentally unacceptable fuel, natural gas.

I think solar thermal energy is an idea worth pursuing. I would not cancel alternatives, but I do think its worth a very decent shot.

[DemSigns]

24. Deal for New Breakthrough Solar Technology - 100 MW

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060209/20060209005107.html?.v=1

IAUS Inks $150 Million Deal for its New Breakthrough Solar Technology, New Low-Cost Solar Energy

Thursday February 9, 8:00 am ET

SALEM, Utah--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 9, 2006--International Automated Systems Inc. (OTCBB: IAUS - News) has signed a $150 million purchase and installation contract to install a turnkey 100-megawatt power plant for Solar Renewable Energy-1 LLC of Nevada.

ADVERTISEMENT
click here
The Nevada installation will showcase IAUS' solar collector lenses, which generate steam to its patented turbines for solar thermal-generated power. Low-cost energy produced by IAUS' new solar technology can be used to generate electricity or produce clean fuels such as hydrogen and green methanol (gasoline replacements) at a competitive price. IAUS' unique thin-film solar panels can be produced at a fraction of the cost of today's photovoltaic solar panels.

After viewing IAUS' proprietary technology, Charlie Vaughn, PE, former president of Nevada Power's coal subsidiary and former vice president of power generation for Nevada Power, stated, "The turbine with the rocket nozzle is so simple; it can be operated almost at will. I'm surprised someone didn't think of it before now. But, the item that places this solar technology in the same play park with fossil-fuel technologies today is the new solar panel. This is a real breakthrough in cost for renewable energy."

The thin acrylic lens focuses the sun like a huge magnifying glass on heat receivers. The solar collector, in combination with IAUS' bladeless turbine, equals lower capital costs and maintenance, plus higher efficiency. This enables IAUS and its customers to compete with the increasing cost in the fossil-fuel energy market ... with low-cost renewable energy.

Vaughn is CEO of Solar Renewable Energy-1 LLC. The contract has conditions for the 550-acre project, including finalizing the funding agreement. The power purchase agreement for the solar power is to be consummated and approved by the Public Utility Commission Nevada.

The state of Nevada legislature requires and mandates that 9% of electricity sales in 2006 be renewable energy. This requirement will continue to increase until 2015, when it reaches 20%. Solar energy will help satisfy this Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Nevada's Lieutenant Governor, Loraine Hunt, has stated that, "Nevada's abundant sunshine has the potential to become the Middle East of renewable energy."

About International Automated Systems Inc. (www.iaus.com)

Founded in 1988, International Automated Systems Inc. develops high-technology products for diverse markets such as energy production, wireless communications, consumer purchasing and financial transactions. The company, founded by a former AT&T communications engineer, is based in Salem, Utah.

Note: Statements contained in this release that are not strictly historical are forward looking within the meaning of the "Safe Harbor" provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are made based upon information available to the company at the time, and the company assumes no obligation to update or revise such forward-looking statements. Editors and investors are cautioned that such forward-looking statements invoke risk and uncertainties that may cause the company's actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, demand for the company's product both domestically and abroad, the company's ability to continue to develop its market, general economic conditions, and other factors that may be more fully described in the company's literature and periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


Contact:

International Automated Systems Inc., Salem
Neldon Johnson, 801-423-8132

Source: International Automated Systems Inc.

[Oerdin]

25. Hmmm.

550 acres for a 100 MW (rated at peak capacity) doesn't sound so good. We can safely assume that actual power production will average around 20 MW so that means 0.036 MW per acre. That is a lot of land needed to produce a small amount of electricity.

[DemSigns]

26. I like the analysis

Can you compare it to other Solar Farms. 550 acres might just be the land that is available.

[jpak]

27. For PV, the value is ~0.5 MW per hectare

for MW-scale PV arrays....