By 2011, near Fresno, California, San Francisco-based Cleantech America LLC plans to build the world's largest solar power plant: 640 acres to fit the 80-megawatt farm, seven times the size of the world's biggest plant and double the largest planned farm, both in Germany. Bill Barnes, CEO of the privately held 2-year-old company, said the scale of the project will change renewable energy and make California the global leader for huge solar projects, replacing Germany as the solar energy hub of the world. Barnes declined to give the estimated construction cost of the Community Choice farm.
Cleantech will partner with public agency California Construction Authority. Among the hurdles to be crossed before the new farm can be built, said Barnes, is buying the acreage somewhere in the San Joaquin Valley, hooking the farm to transmission lines, and contracting with a manufacturer of photovoltaic solar panels. Cleantech plans to sell the solar-generated power (enough for almost 21,000 homes) to the Kings River Conservation District, the water management arm of the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority.
News source: CNN
Cleantech will partner with public agency California Construction Authority. Among the hurdles to be crossed before the new farm can be built, said Barnes, is buying the acreage somewhere in the San Joaquin Valley, hooking the farm to transmission lines, and contracting with a manufacturer of photovoltaic solar panels. Cleantech plans to sell the solar-generated power (enough for almost 21,000 homes) to the Kings River Conservation District, the water management arm of the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority.
News source: CNN
2). It's not pointless because once you build it, you have pretty much no other costs but maintenance. It's free energy. Just calculate how much those 21,000 homes would have to pay for conventional electricity. This solar power plant can charge 10 times less than that and still be profitable after capital costs (costs to build the plant) have been repaid.
that high altitude wind stuff is cool too. like a thousand kites flying at 1K feet produce some insane amount of power from the high speed wind.
that high altitude wind stuff is cool too. like a thousand kites flying at 1K feet produce some insane amount of power from the high speed wind.
Well if you figure my electric bill is 200+ and lets just say 21,000 x 200 is 4,200,000 so it is a big deal 21 thou homes is a **** load that will power my whole town of 40,000+.
Solar power costs 2-5x as much as conventional power for a reason. You cant charge 10 times less because it would take 100 years to pay off the cost of the plant + maintenance. By that time the cells will have dropped in efficiency.
The technology needs to evolve more before it can begin to compete.
That is how much a comparative coal-fuelled power station could generate over it's average lifespan of 75.
That is how much a comparative coal-fuelled power station could generate over it's average lifespan of 75.
Not that I am saying this solar station is bad but what about the amount of CO2 that would be taken out of the air with 640 acres of forest. (or other plants) At this amount of space you'd have to cover the entire planet to create enough power for all of us.
shed loads of power
absolutley zero emissions
who cares about a bit of radioactive waste :p
and even that wont be a problem (aside from radioactive deuterium which has a half life of a few years) with fusion.. this is where the money should be going
That is how much a comparative coal-fuelled power station could generate over it's average lifespan of 75.
Not that I am saying this solar station is bad but what about the amount of CO2 that would be taken out of the air with 640 acres of forest. (or other plants) At this amount of space you'd have to cover the entire planet to create enough power for all of us.
I was watching Discover or The Science channel a few months ago and there was a statement that if we covered 10% of Nevada with either solar or wind turbines we could power the entire country. My thought then is; let's do it. Now maybe;
a) I heard incorrectly.
b) The person speaking was being overly generous.
However, if not. I cannot see a reason to not create the solar/wind farm.
Peace,
James
The Nevada thing, yeah, but the problem is that that's calculated by using every square inch, every square inch of Nevada can't be used, and you also need space between the anels.AND that's a ridiculous amount of panels, and they are allready expensive to produce and there is a lack of the materials they need to make them, hence the price.
The Nevada thing, yeah, but the problem is that that's calculated by using every square inch, every square inch of Nevada can't be used, and you also need space between the anels.AND that's a ridiculous amount of panels, and they are allready expensive to produce and there is a lack of the materials they need to make them, hence the price.
Someone enlighten me. What is the byproduct of solar cells?
And, please note that it was not stated that the WHOLE of Nevada, but 10%. So if it takes 10% of cells but the cell holders take another 1/2 of that space, then we are talking 15% of Nevada. However, again the point is, in this argument, why not create the cells. Please send me some info, a link, etc where there are negative byproducts. Wikipedia does not mention any (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell) however I do understand that Wikipedia is not the source for all infomation. Whereas, there is known proof that fosil fuels and nuclear do have harmful byproducts. So, I'm listening.
yeah but its made from sand. we have a little bit of that left last time i checked. and i highly doubt the amount of waste generated from enough solar panels to cover 15% on nevada is more then waste generated from curent energy sources over the next 20 years. hell, the next 10 years.
however, further up had it right on the button. Nuclear power is by far the best option curently. but for some reason everyone gets cought up on the island and Chernobyl incidents. the general public cant seem to grasp the fact that stupid people running large facilities is a recipe for disaster. you cant just turn off the safety mechanisms to "see what happens".
yeah but its made from sand. we have a little bit of that left last time i checked. and i highly doubt the amount of waste generated from enough solar panels to cover 15% on nevada is more then waste generated from curent energy sources over the next 20 years. hell, the next 10 years.
however, further up had it right on the button. Nuclear power is by far the best option curently. but for some reason everyone gets cought up on the island and Chernobyl incidents. the general public cant seem to grasp the fact that stupid people running large facilities is a recipe for disaster. you cant just turn off the safety mechanisms to "see what happens".
As far as I was aware it isn't the silica which is the problem, it is the key ingredient in the solar panels which enables this all to work; iirc it is some rare earth that there is v. little of on the planet?
Last edited by Octol on 11 Jul 2007 - 04:37
That is how much a comparative coal-fuelled power station could generate over it's average lifespan of 75.
Not that I am saying this solar station is bad but what about the amount of CO2 that would be taken out of the air with 640 acres of forest. (or other plants) At this amount of space you'd have to cover the entire planet to create enough power for all of us.
I was watching Discover or The Science channel a few months ago and there was a statement that if we covered 10% of Nevada with either solar or wind turbines we could power the entire country. My thought then is; let's do it. Now maybe;
a) I heard incorrectly.
b) The person speaking was being overly generous.
However, if not. I cannot see a reason to not create the solar/wind farm.
Peace,
James
It was probably using the 'most efficient' technology at that time. IIRC, the current generation of solar cells only have a 4% efficiency, which is very inefficient vs. space used. The best technology out there gets around 24% IIRC but its cost are very high.
Imagine if the $500billion wasted on the Iraq war was used to develop renewable energy. Solar cells would probably be sitting at a robust 70% rather than a piddly 24%. We would have fusion power which would produce an abundance of Hydrogen for cars. All of this could have been had it not been wasted on a war in Iraq.
Better still, hydrogen cars and being able to tell the middle east to go rotate on the big finger.
I do NOT want you building anything around where I live.
Post #4 was supposed to be a reply to post #3, not directly to the article.
who needs easily convertable measurements that are multiples of ten? id rather measure by the length of a British kings foot.
Totally. The metric system is overrated.
(That was sarcasm, by the way.)
Totally. The metric system is overrated.
(That was sarcasm, by the way.)
It depends what you are measuring; for height i'm pretty sure it is standard, as last time I checked I didn't say I was 175cm tall...
I've heard plenty of Europeans talk about their height in centimeters.
... especially since the US talked much of the rest of the world into converting to metrics, and then decided it'd be too expensive to do so itself.
Just think, we could have spent the trillion on the useless Iraq war on eliminating our country's need to ever give a damn about what happens in the Middle East ever again.
ah but by spending trillions on a pointless war he saved millions on oil, see what smart businessman george bush is?
there was a suburb in the us i remember reading about a while ago that had a solar package on every house, and i think the average utility bill for each house something staggering like 85% less then a normal house on the grid. only reason its not self sufficient is batterie tech is not sufficient and the sun dosnt shine 24/7.
there was a suburb in the us i remember reading about a while ago that had a solar package on every house, and i think the average utility bill for each house something staggering like 85% less then a normal house on the grid. only reason its not self sufficient is batterie tech is not sufficient and the sun dosnt shine 24/7.
yes, but the more the home user puts into the grid the less we polute with CO2... anything is more then nothing
The truth of the matter is the world could run off of a combination of solar, wind and hydro. Putting solar panels on the roofs of every building in sunny areas would cut energy needs and pollution considerably. The panels they use on the mars rovers are also about 66% more efficient than current panels because they absorb multiple types of radiation, the only problem is they're extremely expensive at this point. There are also other ways of harnessing solar power other than through panels such as channeling the light via mirrors to a central core which in turn heats water into steam.
Cold fusion is still a possibility as well; there has been some recent headroom through experimentation. Nuclear plants, however, are very expensive to construct, maintain and teardown besides there being no viable solution to nuclear waste. That is replacing one pollutant with another as far as I'm concerned.
ya i saw it too, kind of depressing but at the end they showed alternative car companies that make electric cars like Tesla Motors and theyre really impressive, Ill get an electric car for sure and not only for the environment.
We need to think small and local.
Solar panels on roofs will cut base demand.
Small neighbourhood power stations for handling peak demand and the excess need solar can't.
Why can't we figure out a way to make freeways out of solar panels?
Applause
Applause
This will be an iniciative of a new era of clean energy,great idea,totally justified by me.Calfornia is without a doubt the most concious state of all United States,and an example to follow,about climate issues (Among others),of all states in U.S.
Great
Get your sources right.
Portugal Solar Plant is 60-hectare (150-acre) - 11-megawatt
California (U.S) Solar Plant is 256-hectare (640 acre) - 80-megawatt
Winner: California
Portugal Solar Plant is 60-hectare (150-acre) - 11-megawatt
California (U.S) Solar Plant is 256-hectare (640 acre) - 80-megawatt
Winner: California
how about YOU actually reading the source above...
read this news' headline: "California to build [...]"
then again Germany will prolly stay the most important researcher and producer of solar technology for quite some time...
and still this project rocks
Glassed Silver:mac
Adding that California is a myor player in clean energy,this isn't new to them
Webpage Error
Last edited by EduardValencia on 11 Jul 2007 - 16:32
if only the americans had not had a war in IRAQ and the people with money and power had not been stupid.
EDIT: and then we could have a new term 'wireless electrical shock!'
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.