Ivanpah was obsolete before it started up. $2.2B Boondoggle
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar-project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ray-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > The new rankings of the World's "smartest" companies is out. I was > wondering > about alternative energy and energy in general. Is there any "smart" > company > in energy sector - one which takes into account ecological costs and real > taxpayer subsidies to nuclear and coal? > > Turns out, the largest solar power plant in the World, built by the top > ranked energy company in the World (according to MIT) which is named > BrightSource - was also in the News as well - as the plant started up on > time last week. > > BrightSource is located in Oakland no less (maybe there is a "there, > there"). > > This is not photovoltaics, but 3-axis mirrored thermal - and the solar heat > can be stored. BrightSource's 370+ megawatt facility is the first and more > of this type are on the way. It is claimed that although the initial > facility capital cost was pretty high, it is nevertheless competitive with > nuclear, based on real quotes and lack of need to refuel every 6 years. > > Do not fall for the disinformation of the nuclear industry on low cost. > None > of nuclear would not have been possible without large government loan > guarantees - and the one to BrightSource partially makes up for other solar > loans gone sour. Many nuclear loans went sour too. BTW - the tax credit and > loan guarantee is less than a comparable nuclear plant when one includes > the > real adjusted cost of fuel enrichment to the taxpayer. That is a massive > hidden cost. > > To be fair, there is controversy of course. Energy is political. The WSJ - > which has sadly degenerated into a Murdoch political tool on ecological > issues - even to the extent of supporting coal - quotes incorrect cost > numbers for this facility (and grossly overblown harm to wildlife)... and > the numbers show that this kind of solar power will cost a third of what > consumers are now paying in California. Three more facilities are underway, > which certainly rankles the fossil fuel industry. > > Jones > > BTW from a California perspective, for those who wonder why consumers here > do not trust nuclear in general, and will pay more for solar - here is what > the Nuclear industry does not want you to consider: the infamous Rancho > Seco > disaster. > > This was suppose to be a Gigawatt level - Babcock and Wilcox designed > pressurized water reactor plant which achieved initial criticality in 1974. > Four years later, a power supply failure led to steam generator "dry-out". > This could have been a mini TMI, Brown's Ferry or even Fukushima - but > fortunately without the perfect storm of Fuku. Few appreciate how close > Rancho Seco was to a gigantic catastrophe. > > The plant operated from 1975 to 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of > only 39%. That's right over 14 years of operation - the net output was less > than 40% of faceplate! > > Rancho Seco was closed by public referendum in 1989 (despite its operating > license being good until 2008). Electric power from that plant cost more > than solar, even without the extreme risk of catastrophe - and when > everything is considered, there will probably never be another nuclear > plant > in this state until LENR is available. > > >
