Obama-Backed Solar Plant Could Be Shut Down For Not Producing Enough Energy

RockX

Banned
California regulators may force a massive solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to shut down after years of under-producing electricity — not to mention the plant was blinding pilots flying over the area and incinerating birds.


The Ivanpah solar plant could be shut down if state regulators don’t give it more time to meet electricity production promises it made as part of its power purchase agreements with utilities, according to The Wall Street Journal.


Ivanpah, which got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, only produced a fraction of the power state regulators expected it would. The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.


And it does all this at a cost of $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Interestingly enough, Ivanpah uses natural gas to supplement its solar production.


These disappointing results at high prices could be the solar plant’s undoing. California Energy Commission regulators hoped the plant would help the state get 33 percent of its electricity from green sources, but now the plant could be shut down for not meeting its production promises.


Ivanpah — which is owned by BrightSource Energy, NRG Energy and Google — uses more than 170,000 large mirrors, or heliostats, to reflect sunlight towards water boilers set atop 450-foot towers that create steam to turn giant turbines and generate electricity.


The plant was financed by $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy in 2011. When the solar plant opened in 2014, it was hailed as a great achievement by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “This project speaks for itself,” Moniz said when the project went online in early 2014. “Just look at the 170,000 shining heliostat mirrors and the three towers that would dwarf the Statue of Liberty.”


“Ivanpah is the largest solar thermal energy facility in the world with 392 MW of capacity — meaning it can produce enough renewable electricity to power nearly 100,000 homes,” Moniz said.

Moniz’s optimism aside, the project faced huge problems from the beginning. NRG Energy asked the federal government for a $539 million federal grant to help pay off the $1.6 billion loan it got from the Energy Department.


NRG Energy said the plant had only produced about one-quarter of its expected output in the months after it opened. The company needed an infusion of cash to help keep the project afloat.

That was only the beginning of the company’s problems. Environmentalists quickly attacked the project for killing thousands of birds since it opened. Many birds were incinerated by the intense heat being reflected off Ivanpah’s heliostats.


The Associated Press cited statistics presented by environmentalists in 2014 that “about a thousand… to 28,000” birds are incinerated by Ivanpah’s heliostats every year.

“Forensic Lab staff observed a falcon or falcon-like bird with a plume of smoke arising from the tail as it passed through the flux field,” according to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report from 2014.


“Immediately after encountering the flux, the bird exhibited a controlled loss of stability and altitude but was able to cross the perimeter fence before landing,” FWS reported.



roflmao.gif


Another Obama failure, what a surprise....


 
It's funny you see these as "failures."

This is how investment works. Some ventures are going to pan out, some aren't. It's business 101.
 
What - are you going for a little semantic gotcha?

I'll give it to you, to make your night: it failed.

I wasn't trying for a gotcha, I did not understand how you could not consider them failures, so I asked.

Do you always throw a hissy fit when someone shows you made an error?
 
I wasn't trying for a gotcha, I did not understand how you could not consider them failures, so I asked.

Do you always throw a hissy fit when someone shows you made an error?

I was trying to say that sporadic failures don't make the whole program of R&D investment a failure. That of course you're going to have some that pan out & some that don't. I thought that was fairly obvious.
 
I was trying to say that sporadic failures don't make the whole program of R&D investment a failure. That of course you're going to have some that pan out & some that don't. I thought that was fairly obvious.

If it was, I wouldn't have asked, would I? Maybe next time you could explain yourself better? :dunno:
 
Now that you explained it, I agree with you. Isn't there a saying about it is worth a thousand failures to get one thing right?
 
Now that you explained it, I agree with you. Isn't there a saying about it is worth a thousand failures to get one thing right?

Exactly. I think our investment in alternatives is very modest; it's not a big budget item. But if something really takes off it will pay huge dividends.

We need to get off of foreign oil. I don't really care how we do it - it shouldn't be a partisan issue. We should drill more domestically & develop alternatives.
 
It's funny you see these as "failures."

This is how investment works. Some ventures are going to pan out, some aren't. It's business 101.

Yes, this is how BUSINESS works, but business also exists to make a profit and we are constantly told that you can't run government like a business. So which is it?

Should the federal government really be investing in businesses? You don't think that reeks?
 
I was trying to say that sporadic failures don't make the whole program of R&D investment a failure. That of course you're going to have some that pan out & some that don't. I thought that was fairly obvious.

The issue isn't about whether R&D investment is a good or bad thing. The issue is whether is should be funded with taxpayer dollars.

You see a key component of business is to make a PROFIT. I would think that that little fact of business is fairly obvious.

Now looking things from a BUSINESS perspective, one can easily conclude that NOTHING the federal government does is profitable. Just look at the deficits and debt.

Do you really want to compare the federal government to a business? I would be happy to continue along these lines. It won't work out well for you.
 
The issue isn't about whether R&D investment is a good or bad thing. The issue is whether is should be funded with taxpayer dollars.

You see a key component of business is to make a PROFIT. I would think that that little fact of business is fairly obvious.

Now looking things from a BUSINESS perspective, one can easily conclude that NOTHING the federal government does is profitable. Just look at the deficits and debt.

Do you really want to compare the federal government to a business? I would be happy to continue along these lines. It won't work out well for you.

How much profit did the tax payer funded space program make ?
No technological benefits and advancements came from that, were there, loser.
 
Last edited:
How much profit did the tax payer funded space program make ?
No technological benefits and advancements came from that, were there, loser.

Are you comparing the space program to Obamas solar boondoggles?

You are dodging my question. Your side keeps saying the government makes "investments". Well the goal of any investment is to yield a monetary return at some future point in time. PERIOD

Ask Topspin
 
Back
Top