Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, the world's largest solar thermal plant is seeking a federal bail out of over a half billion dollars. The reason ? The sun is not shining enough, . The facility which is only producing 1/4 of it's projected output of electrical production is seeking a 539 million dollar grant to repay it's 1.6 billion federal loan. The biggest loan the regime gave to green energy. The owners which include Google, JP Morgan,and NRG Energy (among others) have millions of dollars on their balance sheets.
The sun's not shining enough in a desert? With an average rainfall of about five inches, I would think there would be few clouds throughout the year and, while not sunny every single day, enough sunshine. Sounds maybe more like am efficiency problem than a sunshine deficiency problem.
The sun's not shining enough in a desert? With an average rainfall of about five inches, I would think there would be few clouds throughout the year and, while not sunny every single day, enough sunshine. Sounds maybe more like am efficiency problem than a sunshine deficiency problem.
Two tidbits I forgot to add ... 1) The solar plant is having to burn three times the natural gas needed for operations. The natural gas it was supposed to replace. In March, the owners sought permission to use 60 percent more natural gas in auxiliary boilers than was allowed under the plant’s certification, a request that was approved in August.
2) The solar plant is estimated to kill 28,000 birds a year. In a brutal manner. If not cooking them in flight, leaving them injured on the ground unable to fly, becoming prey for predators. More and bigger solar plants are planned.
I am skeptical about that estimate of 28,000 bird kills per year. I think that number is from a report released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, based on observations of what they believed to be birds catching fire. They were looking towards one of the collector towers and recording the number of "bird fires", based on sudden flashes of light that they were seeing.
But the plant operators reported only 321 dead birds recovered at the site in the six months from January to June, 2014. And not all of those bird carcasses were "cooked".
I think they are still trying to sort this out. Maybe installing some visual surveillance cameras and trying some other ways to close in on this number with greater confidence.
Well that's it then. The federal agency folks known as the US Fish and Wildlife are full of feces and don't know what the hell they're talking about, and I'm pretty sure, that the plant operators would NEVER falsify any report regarding wildlife being incinerated in mid flight by their nice, new, clean, green and kind to the environment solar power facility. The US Govt really doesn't want solar power to succeed, so they intentionally miscounted by a HUGE margin (27,679) just to make this facility look bad. Yeah--that's it.
Given these variables it is difficult to know the scope of avian mortality at these facilities. The numbers of dead birds are likely underrepresented, perhaps vastly so. Observational and statistical studies to account for carcass loss may help us to gain a better sense of how many birds are being killed. Complete histories would help us to identify factors (such as vertical placement of mirrors) leading to mortalities. Continued monitoring is also advised as these facilities transition from construction to full operation. Of especial concern is the Ivanpah facility which was not fully-functioning at the time of the latest carcass submissions. In fact, all but 7 of the carcasses with solar flux injury and reported dates of collection were found at or prior to the USFWS site visit (October 21-24, 2013) and, therefore, represent flux mortality from a facility operating at only 33% capacity. Investigation into bat and insect mortalities at the power tower site should also be pursued.
For hot water we use Black panels with a thin layer of water The water heats up , rises to heat up the water tank Hot water for ever. We have more sun that you'll Our electric solar panels are working fine
Originally posted by rinselberg: I don't know where that figure of 28,000 bird kills per year at the Ivanpah solar plant has originated.
Lets half that figure. Then multiply it by four, 'cause the plant is only operating at 25% of projected capacity. More and larger plants are in the works.
I am skeptical about that estimate of 28,000 bird kills per year. I think that number is from a report released by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, based on observations of what they believed to be birds catching fire. They were looking towards one of the collector towers and recording the number of "bird fires", based on sudden flashes of light that they were seeing.
But the plant operators reported only 321 dead birds recovered at the site in the six months from January to June, 2014. And not all of those bird carcasses were "cooked".
I think they are still trying to sort this out. Maybe installing some visual surveillance cameras and trying some other ways to close in on this number with greater confidence.
....still kills more birds than the tailing ponds in Alberta - yet there is a far bigger stink about dead ducks because they are tied to oil (it's ok birds are being killed by wind and solar plants since they are not evil).
I'll be following whatever facts come out about this. Everyone knows that I'm a solar fan although I like decentralized systems way more than huge centralized ones. As usual the fossil fuel fans are all over these reports that don't seem to be final or determined. Yes, I still use fossil fuels and will continue to do so until the inevitable time when clean renewable energy is perfected and economical. That time seems to be coming closer and closer in spite of the fossil fuel industries efforts to promote drilling and burning until the last drop is gone. The lowest price I've been offered so far is 32 cents a watt for solar panels and that is already lower than fossil fuels but they continue to go down in price as fossil fuels still go up. That's my biggest deterrent. I don't want to invest in a large system at that price and then find out that there has been a nanotech breakthrough that enables a large price reduction after I've already committed to an investment. My home owned system won't kill any birds and will also do double duty as a privacy fence on the one side of my property that needs it.
Living here in this green hippy infested state where everyone is so concerned about the environment yet they are so stupid with their money, it has been proven through the failure of Solyndra here in the Bay Area that the solar market is dead at the commercial level. Solar panels work very well for the homeowner, small business, and some schools. Trying to squeeze the required energy out of 10 miles of solar panels and recoup your investment is a waste of time. I have seen the energy "towers" come and go just as fast as they were built. They are a HUGE waste of time. We used to have one that was about 10 miles south of Barstow California and it lasted about 1.5 years before being torn down.
Solyndra had some pretty shady aspects to it. For instance they have taken the fifth to protect themselves instead of being forthright. They made their bet on a technology that was bypassed by newer technology and it was an obviously poor investment of taxpayer money. Not all bets on the future will pay off. That's not a good reason to put all of our money into fossil fuels, but we definitely need to take a closer look at any investments rather than just jump in because they say they're green.
Algore can fork over some of his money he made from his global warming windfall and sale to Aljazeera his failing TV network. I am always amazed of the idiocy of the US government using taxpayer's dollars to fund "big" businesses poor decisions. But they need to repay the politician donors so they can get more donations for the next election cycle.
Have there been any successful green energy projects on a major scale?
Given these variables it is difficult to know the scope of avian mortality at these facilities. The numbers of dead birds are likely underrepresented, perhaps vastly so. Observational and statistical studies to account for carcass loss may help us to gain a better sense of how many birds are being killed. Complete histories would help us to identify factors (such as vertical placement of mirrors) leading to mortalities. Continued monitoring is also advised as these facilities transition from construction to full operation. Of especial concern is the Ivanpah facility which was not fully-functioning at the time of the latest carcass submissions. In fact, all but 7 of the carcasses with solar flux injury and reported dates of collection were found at or prior to the USFWS site visit (October 21-24, 2013) and, therefore, represent flux mortality from a facility operating at only 33% capacity. Investigation into bat and insect mortalities at the power tower site should also be pursued.
It comes from a settled science known as math..........(you remember and accept settled science .....don't you?)
quote
The AP story by Ellen Knickmeyer and John Locher, published Monday, fueled the new dispute with this sentence, early in the piece: "Estimates [of birds killed] per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group."
That's certainly a huge discrepancy: a factor of 28. How did BrightSource and the the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) expert arrive at such diametrically opposed estimates?
That number came from testimony offered to the California Energy Commission by ecologist K. Shawn Smallwood during hearing on the proposed Palen Solar Electric Generating System, which BrightSource would be building with partner Abengoa Solar in a joint venture called Palen Solar Holdings. Palen would have a design substantially similar to that of Ivanpah, but would be considerably larger.
That means that the emerging issue of bird mortality at Ivanpah is of supreme concern to the regulators deciding whether to allow Palen to be built, as the Palen project would likely be even more hazardous to birds.
In testimony offered to the commission on June 23, Smallwood discussed how he would estimate estimates of avian mortality at Ivanpah, based on recorded deaths at Ivanpah during April and May of this year. In that two-month period carcass surveyors recovered 183 birds from Ivanpah's fields of mirrored heliostats.
Smallwood pointed out that since many of the birds recovered were small; warblers, hummingbirds, and the like. If the prevalence of small species was representative of all birds killed at Ivanpah and not just the ones surveyors found, local scavengers such as ravens and kit foxes would likely have been able to remove many of the carcasses before they could be recovered.
Biologists call the unknown degree to which dead birds and other animals are eaten before they can be counted "scavenger bias." Smallwood suggested that the scavenger bias for Ivanpah's April and May mortality might be around 20 percent, meaning that ravens and foxes and such ate four carcasses for each one found.
If that estimate was true, said Smallwood, the actual number of dead birds in the areas surveyed for carcasses would run somewhere around 473 birds per month, or about five times the average monthly death toll for April and May. And since only one fifth of the facility's heliostat fields are being systematically surveyed by Ivanpah's contracting biologist, that 473 birds per month would need to be multiplied by five again, which would give us a figure of 2,365 birds per month across the entire range of heliostat fields.
Multiply that monthly estimated total by 12, and you get a figure of 28,380 birds potentially killed at Ivanpah in a year of operation.
That's a lot of birds, and Smallwood agreed in his testimony that his calculations were based on a few assumptions that he could not verify completely, mainly because the data on both Ivanpah bird mortalities and the methodology Ivanpah biologists use to collect it just isn't hard enough to make confident predictions. As Smallwood said:
The calculations I just made of fatality rates at Ivanpah were back-of-the-napkin-level, and were based on assumptions that I cannot at this time verify as correct. If I was even close to correct, however, then I suggest that the CEC take a harder look at the potential impacts of Palen. If Ivanpah is killing as many birds as my quick calculations and my unverified assumptions suggest, then solar thermal in California's deserts will cause far greater impacts to wildlife than did the notorious Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Critics of those with concerns about Ivanpah's effect on wildlife have been quick to jump on the "back of the napkin" comment. In his testimony, Smallwood provides a detailed explanation at the methodology behind his own preliminary calculations. Is that methodology solid? Answering that question is, frankly, above ReWire's pay grade. Take a figure accompanying Smallwood's explanation of how he adjusted avian mortality estimates from a 1986 study of the now-defunct Solar One project near Barstow, for instance:
Estimated standard error of the adjusted avian fatality rate at Solar One | Image: K. Shawn Smallwood | CEC We here at ReWire aren't even sure we could fit that on the back of a napkin. Curious readers with post-graduate groundings in the biological sciences can take a look at his testimony and decide for themselves.
At any rate, that's where the AP's figure of "28,000 birds per year" comes from.
(The Damage control rebuttal) In response to the predictable uproar generated by AP's glancing coverage of a story ReWire has been flogging since early 2013, project designer BrightSource -- whose corporate survival depends on acceptance of its power tower technology -- leapt into damage control mode.
"Let's be clear," wrote BrightSource Vice President Joe Desmond in an August 19 blog post on the company's site, "no one disputes that certain levels of concentrated solar flux present a risk to birds."
Desmond continued, "In fact, Ivanpah reported 321 avian fatalities between January and June 2014, of which 133 were related to solar flux."
He then offered by way of comparison a bulleted list of other ways birds die in greater numbers, including as many as three billion killed by cats and around a billion crashing into buildings.
In a companion blog post, Desmond reiterated the company's line:
That's correct -- 321 reported bird deaths that occurred during the plant's first six months of operation. That is far from adding up to the 28,000 annual bird deaths estimated by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) expert K. Shawn Smallwood. Desmond is careful to include the word "reported" along with the number 321, but some of BrightSource's supporters haven't been so careful.
Why is that "reported" so important? Precisely because of the potential sources of error cited by Smallwood.
Even if Smallwood's estimates of bias from scavenging and partial surveys are too pessimistic, the fact remains that that bias does exist. In order for the 321 "reported" bird deaths to be the total avian mortality at Ivanpah in the first half of 2014, we'd have to assume that surveyors collected every last bird that died at Ivanpah.
And that would mean that ravens and foxes and other scavengers didn't find a single carcass, and that all the birds that died thoughtfully made sure to land in the fifth of the heliostat field that was being searched.
....still kills more birds than the tailing ponds in Alberta - yet there is a far bigger stink about dead ducks because they are tied to oil (it's ok if birds are being killed by wind and solar plants since they are not evil).
Yup. BIG world-wide news about those 122 ducks in the tailings ponds this week. Hunters are probably shooting a couple thousand this weekend on the other side of the river. It's odd that no other tailing ponds around the world have this problem (or just NEVER reported?)
People seem to be Confused about why this is bad news and good news. The bad news is for the electric companies, solar is the end of a monopoly for them, it's cheap enough that it pays for itself without government subsidizing but it's not to the point they can make money off generating solar energy from their central pants.
The good news is that as a homeowner if you where to buy solar panels, put them up yourself and tie into the grid it should take about 5 years for them to be profitable. Power companies will have too generate Less energy, charge more and maintain the grid. Jobs will be created as there will be pleny of systems that need to be cleaned, repaired, replaced and serviced
When did that " without government subsidizing " start ? So long as green energy companies are getting loans, grants and loan guarantees, and end users are getting tax credits, subsidies are making green energy marketable.
Two entertaining questions are implied here, for any technical or science-minded green energy maven to pursue.
Does the bird kill phenomenon manifest to similar extent at other CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) installations in the U.S. and wherever else (Spain, I think) there are working installations?
CSP can be combined with on-site energy storage. The Ivanpah project does not have this. Would on-site energy storage alleviate the NG (Natural Gas) issue, where they are finding it necessary to use more NG at the Ivanpah facility than they originally projected?
Two entertaining questions are implied here, for any technical or science-minded green energy maven to pursue.
Does the bird kill phenomenon manifest to similar extent at other CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) installations in the U.S. and wherever else (Spain, I think) there are working installations?
Ivanpah, Genesis and Desert Sun are all in Southern California.
The Ivanpah project submissions included bird-impact studies from two similar Concentrated Solar Power installations. One was a demonstration plant in Dimona, Israel. The other was a large installation, Gemasolar, in Seville, Spain.
But I cannot make heads or tails of it, in terms of a comparison with the bird-impacts at Ivanpah. Too much raw data, and no clearly delineated Summary or Conclusions section.
Just for the record.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-08-2014).]
I read the Israel study earlier. The gist of study of this relatively small plant was to determine the number of birds in the area, which were migratory and which were resident, how high they flew, and how close to the facility they flew and how many each of the observed days. (5 days/week) They used observation protocols suggested by US F&W. The report, is an Interim Report, with several mentions of things to be published when the conclusive report is finished and published--hence only raw data. Published Spring 2012.
It is actually 2 studies by Zev Labinger, a published author and respected researcher & Avian Ecologist at the Israel Ornithological Center. One study was done in Israel at the request of Bright Source Industries-( original developer of Ivanpah) and the 2nd part of the report is from an earlier study done in 2008+ timeframe for a solar plant in Spain titled: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE GEMASOLARTHERMOSOLARPLANT ON THE BIRD COMMUNITY IN THE MONCLOVA SURROUNDING AREA (Fuentes de Andalucia, Seville, Spain) The study is ongoing and summary and conclusion has yet to be published AFAIK.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-08-2014).]
Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, the world's largest solar thermal plant is seeking a federal bail out of over a half billion dollars. The reason ? The sun is not shining enough, . The facility which is only producing 1/4 of it's projected output of electrical production is seeking a 539 million dollar grant to repay it's 1.6 billion federal loan. The biggest loan the regime gave to green energy. The owners which include Google, JP Morgan,and NRG Energy (among others) have millions of dollars on their balance sheets.
Just curious, where did you get this info from?
quote
1) The solar plant is having to burn three times the natural gas needed for operations. The natural gas it was supposed to replace. In March, the owners sought permission to use 60 percent more natural gas in auxiliary boilers than was allowed under the plant’s certification, a request that was approved in August.
So how much natural gas is the plant burning?
From Brightsource:
BrightSource dismissed the notion that natural gas itself was being relied on as a meaningful source of energy production at Ivanpah, saying that “the facilities’ total generation for solar will be 40 to 50 times the generation associated with natural gas.”
quote
2) The solar plant is estimated to kill 28,000 birds a year. In a brutal manner. If not cooking them in flight, leaving them injured on the ground unable to fly, becoming prey for predators. More and bigger solar plants are planned.
How many animals die from health complications related to coal emissions and coal ash?
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
The federal agency folks known as the US Fish and Wildlife are full of feces and don't know what the hell they're talking about, and I'm pretty sure, that the plant operators would NEVER falsify any report regarding wildlife being incinerated in mid flight by their nice, new, clean, green and kind to the environment solar power facility.
This sounds a lot like the arguments made in favor of AGW - that the experts in the field do indeed know what they're talking about - versus those with obvious business motives. Just saying.
When did that " without government subsidizing " start ? So long as green energy companies are getting loans, grants and loan guarantees, and end users are getting tax credits, subsidies are making green energy marketable.
It didn't start, just because they subsidize it doesn't mean it can stand on its own. Have you priced solar panels and what it would cost to install them yourself? To qualify for some tax credits the equipment must be new and installed by a certified installer. When I researched it about a year ago it would have been 20k to do it myself. To have it installed, about 40k. At 20k I would probably get no tax credit but still save money. Over 5 years 20k it's about what I'll spend in electricity.
This sounds a lot like the arguments made in favor of AGW - that the experts in the field do indeed know what they're talking about - versus those with obvious business motives. Just saying.
I was being sarcastic of course. I would accept USF&W data over virtually any other.
The number of anything, killed anywhere else in comparison is pretty much just a red herring. Those un-related-to solar-power deaths in no way diminish the number killed by solar power--or by anything anywhere else. It's akin to discussing the number of commercial airline fatalities and then saying-"How many die on the highways each year"?
Do I believe the bird kills related to solar power are a huge, significant factor? No. There are probably as many birds killed on my own property each year as have been positively found at Ivanpah. 4 legged predators, ground kills by my mowing machine, habitat loss from herbicide use, buzzards and hawks killing smaller birds and their offspring etc. (and no--I don't hunt) I am far more concerned at the prospect that the company wouldn't pay it's govt backed (guaranteed) loan back--out of it's company coffers and investor's returns. Bad enoughwhen a company goes belly up and hasn't the cash or assets to repay a govt (taxpayer) guaranteed loan--worse yet, when a company still operating and with plenty of assets and a good balance sheet petitions the taxpayer to GIVE (grant) them $$ to repay the loans.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 11-08-2014).]
It didn't start, just because they subsidize it doesn't mean it can stand on its own. Have you priced solar panels and what it would cost to install them yourself? To qualify for some tax credits the equipment must be new and installed by a certified installer. When I researched it about a year ago it would have been 20k to do it myself. To have it installed, about 40k. At 20k I would probably get no tax credit but still save money. Over 5 years 20k it's about what I'll spend in electricity.
I know how the "green energy" discussion is laid out.
"Greens" say that the subsidies for fossil fuels are already built in to the U.S. economy, in the way that government regulates and levies taxes and fees. The subsidies for fossil fuels are generous. The public is not as aware of the subsidies for fossil fuels, because the format or administration of fossil fuel subsidies is "quiet" and "low profile", compared to the well publicized grants and subsidies for renewable and low carbon energy. "Greens" say that the subsidies for fossil fuels have been such a longstanding (essentially permanent and unchanging) aspect of the U.S. economy that the public no longer perceives it.
That's how the discussion goes. But I would have to rev up my "Google game" by a factor of ten, in order to find the raw material online, in order to flesh out this line of discussion with the specifics and the details. And right now, I don't want to do that.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-08-2014).]
. The facility which is only producing 1/4 of it's projected output of electrical production is seeking a 539 million dollar grant to repay it's 1.6 billion federal loan. The biggest loan the regime gave to green energy.
