WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States approved on Monday a permit for the largest solar energy project in the world -- four massive plants at the cost of one billion dollars each in southern California.
"The Blythe solar power plant will consist of four, 250-Megawatt plants, built on public lands in the sun-drenched Mojave desert," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.
"When completed the project is expected to generate up to 1,000 Megawatts of energy... That's enough electricity to power up to 750,000 average American homes and to make Blythe the largest solar power plant facility in the world."
The total capacity will be roughly equal to the turbine output of a nuclear power plant or a large modern coal-fired power plant, according to Solar Millennium, the company developing the facility.
Solar Millennium plans to begin construction on Blythe this year, the company says on its website. At the height of construction, the project is expected to create more than 1,000 jobs.
The Blythe facility is one of a raft of renewable energy projects that have been approved in recent weeks by the Interior Department.
Earlier this month, Salazar approved the first five renewable energy projects on public lands, four in California and one in Nevada, both states that have been hard hit by the economic downturn.
Two weeks ago, Salazar inaugurated the world's largest wind tower manufacturing plant in the working class town of Pueblo, Colorado, which will be run by Danish company Vestas Wind Systems.
One week earlier he signed a lease for the first major offshore wind farm, off the coast of New Jersey.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101025...entenergysolar
-------------------------------------------
On the advice of a friend, I created a "fantasy stock portfolio" about 3 years ago, and Vestas Wind Systems is one of my favorites. It has done very well.
I think these are the same solar plants that were involved in some stink about not being able to get environmental approval. Something to do with concerns over some kind of desert critter IIRC. Either way, glad it's been resolved. At least I'm assuming it's been resolved........
the American West is mostly an unpopulated, sun-beaten wasteland. We needs dozens of these and solar thermal plants, 100s of Gwatts, for "free". I say fire the entire military, they can't beat bunch of ragheads, and dump their $700B/year into energy and other infrastructure.
And much of same land, eg, West fricking TX, is very windy, could support solar and wind on the same land (sewage, roads, water treatment/distribution).
Transmission lines are a barrier, as we see trying to bring wind power from West TX to central TX through the Hill Country.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120676
Yes, it is good to see it resolved, I think that was the impasse alluded to in the story.
I am generally for protecting the environment, but there is such a thing as going a bit too far. Humans need electricity.
Actually wind on the coast feeding things like desalinization plants would work wonders. Australia already does something like this.
Coastal wind plants feeding electricity into desalinization plants would be an interesting investment possibility.
California knows how to get done.
Good. The answer to energy for us, is to muster all we can. Solar still doesn't deal with the peak demand dilemma, but it's better than nothing. In the northern la idues where peak demand is heating not cooling, it's a no go.
Since peak demand Is during the hours you can collect solar in this part of the hemisphere, it's all good. My solution/opinion has always been use it all. Solar, wind, nuke, natural gas, coal...
anything but ethynol...that's a loser all the way.
for some reason i keep hearing some evil mastermind's laugh in my head as i read this article...
Gore ?
Hey, I'm pro oil, gas, coal, nuke as anyone, but there are places where solar and wind make sense. This is one of those places. It's smart, like I say, in this situation, in that climate. Were they doing it in Wisconsin, I'd laugh.
Eventually all our energy needs will be met by solar.
Wow...
Only about 40 years to pay the construction costs. I wonder how much that labor costs and ongoing maintenance costs are that I'm not calculation?
No you aren't calculation, flaglot.
All your solar plants are belong to us.
Seriously though, "40 years"? What basis are you using to calculate that?
WC with his head up his ass, as always.
WC, give the construction costs and payback and insurance costs for McLiar's 100 nuke plants.
The standard home mortgage in this country is 30 years, so what's the problem? 40 year bonds aren't that uncommon for financing major infrastructure projects.
It was actually calculated that, based on McCains pledge to get the same % of US electricity from nukes as France currently has, one would need on the order of 700 nukes to be built in the next 30 years, not 100.
Just tryin' ta help.
Issuing the permit doesn't mean it's resolved. All someone has to do is find an insect that only lives in that area and sue in Federal court and they can shut the solar bug toasters down for years.
If someone finds something new, yeah, it's possible. But to get the permit you have to go through a detailed and lengthy environmental review process where theoretically you've identified all potential environmental impacts.
Where's the usual RandomGuy chatter about cost overruns?
Am I to believe that there won't be any cause yahoo didn't mention it?
Many large construction projects end upwith overruns, and there is a possibility of that happening here, yes. No data at all as to the probability of that happening though, so I would be unable to quantify them.
If you are referring to the near 100% probability of cost overruns for nuclear plants, this is not a nuclear plant.
I don't think there's much of a data set out there to predict cost overruns. I'm pretty sure this event is singular.
That's my problem with your constant complaint of cost overruns.....there are overruns in damn near EVERY SINGLE ING construction project on the planet. , suppliers sometimes budget in overruns knowing they'll make more money on them.
There are overruns in houses, commercial buildings, highways, toll roads, coal fire plants, nuclear plants, and there will be with 100% certainty, overruns on this as well.
So when this thing gets done (and I'm all for it), please make sure you post something that describes the overruns because I know how much you love to do so.
Hmmm That might take a few years, but you have my word, I will try to do so. I will add a subscription to this thread and come back to it.
Such overruns MUST be considered in any reasonable analysis of the ultimate cost of any given unit of energy. I hold nuclear's feet to the fire for that, because the scope of those overruns regularly reaches into the 400% of orginal estimated cost range.
I must say though, not 100% of all consctruction projects incur overruns, although the odds go up when the project gets bigger and more complex, such as nuclear plants. You are wrong about that.
You're right, there aren't......but then again, I never said that did I?
And why is it that do you suppose that the overruns regularly reach 400% on nuclear?
I have a theory rooted in doing 100's of etimates on project that rage from power, to highways, to commercial work. By the time these projects get approved, materials and equipment prices have gone up exponentially because the red tape that is needed to cut through takes a ing eternity.
Is that the construction processes fault? The engineers? I'm asking here.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
