The California Desert Is Now Home to the World’s Largest Solar-Power Plant

1) The power plant in question does not operate with PV panels, but it is concentrative solar that focuses light onto a core, which heats up to very high temperatures and probably generates power through a steam generator, just like in a nuclear power plant. So, these "panels" to not go bad after 20 years, but are just mirrors that need to be cleaned.

2)The same argument can be said for cars -- a highly depriciating asset that looses 20% as soon as you drive it off the dealer's lot. Yet, people have no problems spending $40,000 on the behemoth SUV, and paying interest on it for years to come, when for the same price they could have "free solar power" for the next 20-25 years and a compact car. Of course the giant SUV is fun, whereas spending $20,000 on a solar system is as much fun as getting a root canal.

However, the point is that economical calculations as a basis for criticizing PV solar are overblown, since by the same token the cars we drive today are a total depreciating economic waste that nobody should have when saving money is the first priority.

 

The reason why electric cars are attractive is because the efficiency of the electric motor can be >90%, while that of the combustion engine is in the sub 30% range -- huge potential power savings to be had here.

In addition, an electric car needs only a VERY simplified transmission, another huge savings and maintenance factor. Overall, an electric car can get by with a much smaller number of moving parts -- at the expense of battery complexity.

My feeling is that when battery exchange stations will become more ubiquitous and the exchange technology standardized, EVs sales will take off exponentially.

 

By the time you break even, you have to replace them, not including the few times they broke over the years from storm damage. Its pure genius=)

 

I don't know if huge fields of solar arrays is wise in Florida. I can only imagine the massive damage and repair costs to one of these places when a hurricane rolls through, which ultimately tax payers and consumers would end up paying to repair.

 

Ok, we need to define terms here. "Subsidy" in this instance are not tax credits that convert to cash or government backed loans or direct payments without the return of goods or services, these "subsidies" are for the most part legitimate tax deductions that any other business would be allowed. Direct payments, like for Farm Fuel, or purchases of oil by the government to add to the Strategic Reserve are included in your term "Subsidy". We can argue equitable in the tax code all day but these really are not "Subsidies."

Now, the government does allow for some tax benefit that is specific to some oil, coal and gas income. They are reduced taxes as it relates to income / dividend vs royalties as it relates to capital gains. One could argue that these need to be streamlined however we already, and inequitably, double tax dividend; once when the company makes the profit and then again when the individual receives it as dividend income. Ah, the complexities of the tax code. On balance I think it would balance if streamlined. One must remember though, the greatest beneficiary of Oil, Coal and Gas profit is the stock holder and he/she is the 99% overwhelmingly. It's the middle class the change in tax status would effect. Keep that in mind.

Now also on your 450B figure. It's off. You suggest it is the total "subsidy" from 1994 to 2008, it's not, it is from 1918 to 2009.

Referenced from your article on page 7 here:

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

Another thing that seems to shade feelings on the issue is the sheer size of the numbers. 4.5 B per year sounds huge, but in reality it is a small percentage of the total revenue produced by the industry. We are talking about over a Trillion dollars in revenue. Exxon alone paid $31B last year in income tax, Chevron paid $20B........ There is a multiple here that is the double tax on dividends, as the "profit" after tax is distributed to stock holders, they again pay income tax, so nearly double the tax revenue produced. 4.5B in favorable tax treatment becomes less the boogie man when the numbers are looked at realistically.

Cheers
Labour

 

BINGO!!! A hurricane will obliterate it. I don't care one iota what some company claims the farm would be able to resist. As soon as Hurricane "name" comes through and flattens the place, the company will instantly go "whoops", declare bankruptcy,, and we'll be sitting on a giant waste of glass and plastic scrap. Only if we can hang the CEOs by their balls when something goes wrong, would I ever think a solar farm in FL is a good idea. And even then, the number of homes any current farm can support is a JOKE, at the moment.

If you don't live in FL you don't have a ^$*#(*@( clue about these issues.

 

I wouldn't say that people who don't live in FL don't know about those issues. Granted, I once did live there, but in reality all you need is a functioning brain and a little bit of knowledge of the geography and weather patterns of Florida to connect those dots and realize what a bad idea it could turn into.

 

Solar hot water panels are the rule, not the exception in Israel..

 

No, they don't. A subsidy is a direct cash payment to an organization. See the Green Energy sector and you will find many examples.

Oil companies pay tens of BILLIONS in taxes each and every year. In fact, the big three have the highest effective tax rates of all companies in the united states.

On what planet is a company that sends tens of billions of dollars to the federal gov't being subsidized?

 

What does solar hot water panels in Israel have anything to do with what I said?

 

They don't sell the land to the pipeline they rent it and collect rent as long as it is there, buried under their land.

 

You left out this part

"As the chief executive of a solar technology company"

And I missed that part about what exactly are these "subsidies"?

 

No difference. They're forced to give up their control of the land under their homes - and their property as a whole for the period of construction.

No benefits. Do it all on a voluntary basis or don't do it at all. No exceptions.

 

Ahhhh

The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is a 550 megawatt (MWAC) photovoltaic power station in the Mojave Desert, California. It uses approximately 8.8 million cadmium telluride modules made by the US thin-film manufacturer First Solar. Upon opening in February 2015, it became one of the world's largest photovoltaic solar power farms.[1] [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm

But the car doesn't go 20% slower does it.

It's the ones supporting it that are, like the "after 20 years it's free energy".

- - - Updated - - -

Between selling and renting...........................now that's rich. There is a HUGE difference and it's not running under homes and you don't lose use of the land.

 

Only the area in the easement is effected. There is a payment, negotiable. Some take a lump sum others receive annual royalties, paid on a liner foot basis in most cases.

I think the XL pipeline is a 50' wide easement. Construction phase would be the only real disruption in quiet enjoyment, maintenance and inspection would be rare.

Cheers
Labour

 

And if you have to make up for the efficiency loses.

 

Sure beats a tar sands pipeline.

 

I was responding to another post regarding panel life. However, the "mirrors" WILL need to be replaced after being sandblasted in the desert environment as the diffusing effect reduces their efficiency. One real good sand storm and you need to replace most of them.



Look what blowing desert sand did to this windshield of a car.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?6947093-Sandblasted-car-means-a-rental

The rotator motors and aiming servos need to be replaced and so on. A colossal waste of money. In addition to fricasseeing birds including endangered species......

$2.2 BILLION DOLLARS for a plant producing HALF the power expected.

I can only wonder how long it will take for this "Edsel" in the desert to go belly up and be abandon.

 

Will a PV power plant or a concentrative solar power plant need maintenance? Absolutely. So do nuclear power plants, hydroelectric dams, coal power plants etc. In fact, it is the nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that all physical things decay and need input of work to be kept up. That upkeep hasn't prevented us from using nuclear power plants, for example. So, I don't understand why it is seen as a negative for solar power?

Look, I have said in several posts that I don't see solar as the solution to our energy problems. It can't be, because energy density is low. However, I don't understand the need to denigrate any attempt in investment into alternative energies, including solar, for purely political agenda. Everyone would benefit if solar technology improves, and everyone suffers if we are left without alternatives when fossil fuel costs skyrocket. Just to alleviate risk in volatile traditional fossil fuel prices would be worth paying a bit more on alternative energy, to prevent putting all of our eggs into the wrong energy basket.

China, for example, installed more solar power in 2014 than the total available in the US. That means that the US is loosing the race for alternative energies by a wide margin. Will oil still be with us for a while? Probably. But when it becomes really expensive, guess who will have the leg up: Germany and China, who have already made decades of investments into renewables, while the US was dragging their feet because some people complained about a small fraction of their tax dollars going to renewable energy investments.

 

Solar panels are the most inefficient forms of energy ever concocted by man.

How much energy does it take to build, transport and maintain them?

See people don't even think about that - they just go "wow free energy, how could anyone be against this?"

A solar panel will break before it even starts producing beyond it's cost and maintenance...

It's a waste of money...

 

These contracts are written so that whatever they mess up during construction has to be returned to its previous state.. at least that's how it worked for me.

 

Oh yeah ... solar panels are terrific.. I installed passive solar hot water in 1979 for $1800 and it was a huge success what with five kids, laundry and seemingly unlimited showers... we NEVER ran out of hot water......

 

Don't get me wrong, solar panels are great for smaller applications but the notion of using them to supply cities with power is just not reasonable or even economically viable.

The idea that solar panels are the future is just asinine... The best part is these idiots haven't even figured out how to use mirrors yet to maximize solar efficiency. So it goes to show how stupid these people are behind these projects er political projects really are.

This is all about feel good green politics and not about energy or engineering a viable product.

 

Tell me about it - I have worked on a few government projects and the bureaucracy is stunning.... Before you can even start the damn project you're already mummified in red tape.

And it's all about politics.

 

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa.

This is another one of those failed energy boondoggle projects. They got tons of government money to build this albatross in the form of loans, and now that it is up and running and can't make enough money to pay off the loans is looking for a government bailout in the form of taxpayer funded grants to pay off the loans. The thing doesn't produce the energy they said it would, and of course, it only works during the day, so it needs to be backed up with fossil fueled energy plants.

Lastly, and this might be the best of the irony, it'll fry a bird in half a second. That'll please PETA and the environazis.