US Pays $2B To Develop Concentrating Solar Power Projects

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Pays $2B To Develop Concentrating Solar Power Projects

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:17AM from the everything-collecting-the-sun dept.

coondoggie writes "The US Department of Energy today said it was conditionally committing $2 billion to develop two concentrating solar power projects that it says will offer 500 megawatts of power combined, effectively doubling the nation's currently installed capacity of that type of power. Concentrated solar systems typically use parabolic mirrors to collect solar energy."

219 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

500MW Average by bugs2squash · 2011-06-15 08:21 · Score: 0

or only at noon ?

--
Nullius in verba
1. Re:500MW Average by sdBlue · 2011-06-15 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't read TFA of course, but I would assume they mean solar-thermal, where a medium is used as a buffer to store the heat, and provide power when the sun isn't shining.
2. Re:500MW Average by afidel · 2011-06-15 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Both plants have thermal storage so I'm assuming that's their base load rating.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
3. Re:500MW Average by softWare3ngineer · 2011-06-15 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I believe that these projects use molten salt to store energy and produce power through most of the night as well. I could be wrong, just what i remember from similar stories in the past.
4. Re:500MW Average by afidel · 2011-06-15 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, typical values for thermal storage are 18-36 hours of rated generating capacity, which in the southwest should be more than sufficient for anything but a one in a million event.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
5. Re:500MW Average by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2011-06-15 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortuantely no, the 500 MW is theoretical peak operational capacity, you know, if the plants were located in magical 24/7 daylight zone on the equator. So you can expect about 1/3 of that value to be actually produced.
  I know it's a govt. project, but still. This makes nuclear look cheap.
6. Re:500MW Average by fractoid · 2011-06-16 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's f**king crazy. $4000 / kW - they might as well be using consumer photovoltaics. If that's base load then the figure becomes roughly correct, but still... at the 500mW scale, shouldn't they be getting SOME economies of scale?
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
7. Re:500MW Average by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2011-06-16 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's not quite that bad ... $4000 / kW (which ignores storage losses, but hey) still translates to
  1 year life : 0.45$ / kWh
  2 year life : 0.225$ / kWh ...
  10 year life : 0.045 $ / kWh
  20 year life : 0.0225 $ / kWh
  Still, more expensive than nuclear ($2500-$3000 /kW capacity), lots more expensive than coal.
This is only useful by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 08:27 · Score: 0

if these are manufactured here. If this work goes to China (or spain), it really is a waste of money.
1. Re:This is only useful by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I only partially agree. The short-term impact of the manufacturing jobs is lost. The long-term impact of developing the manufacturing tech here is lost. The equipment and the power that it generates is gained.
  I generally agree that it would be good to see the manufacturing developed here--preferably adjacent to where these things will be used. Since the finished goods have to be shipped there, it might make sense to ship the raw materials there and build them too. Then again, it might not. There's a lof analysis involved, and you can be surprised at the conclusions of good analysis. It might make perfectly good sense to make the stuff on the other side of the world and ship it here.
  Yes. Trade deficits, blah, blah. At the end of the day they have falling bonds and weak dollars. We have a physical plant. This reminds me a lot of the fear that people expressed when the Japanese were buying high profile buildings here in the 80s. We're not going to lose anything if the "shit hits the fan". They have a piece of paper that says they own something. We have the something, surrounded by guns.
2. Re:This is only useful by gnick · 2011-06-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  According to TFA, it sounds like this effort is as much to generate jobs in California as it is to generate power.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
3. Re:This is only useful by pixelpusher220 · 2011-06-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Which political party here has been actively trying to stop 'green' technologies?
  
  The old mantra of the GOP being the 'pro business' party would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. They only the pro 'current big biz who pays us' party.
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
4. Re:This is only useful by pixelpusher220 · 2011-06-15 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Trade deficits, blah, blah. At the end of the day they have falling bonds and weak dollars. We have a physical plant.
  Better to have the world buying your tech, then you having to buy theirs, no?
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
5. Re:This is only useful by Grishnakh · 2011-06-15 09:47 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Yes. Trade deficits, blah, blah. At the end of the day they have falling bonds and weak dollars. We have a physical plant. This reminds me a lot of the fear that people expressed when the Japanese were buying high profile buildings here in the 80s.
  This isn't an office building, nor is it a museum relic. It's not going to last forever, nor is it going to be sufficient for supplying power forever. Any kind of power plant requires well-trained people to keep it running, and if you plan to use more power in the future (which everyone should, unless you're in Detroit), then you're going to need to either upgrade this plant or build more of them. If all the expertise to do all this resides with foreign companies, then you're stuck with having to go back to them when you need to expand in the future, or if you have any big problems. This isn't a very good situation to be in with your vital infrastructure.
  The Japanese buying big office buildings isn't the same. It's pretty trivial for a company to move all its offices out of one building and into another one down the street in case the new landlord tries to double rent. Sure, it takes a bit of money to hire movers and change the letterhead and set up the cubicles and install new network cabling, but it's really not a big deal. It's a totally different matter when your power plant supplier wants 5x as much for a second plant which you absolutely need in order to avoid rolling blackouts.
6. Re:This is only useful by Asic+Eng · 2011-06-15 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing particularly wrong with that. Of course that shouldn't lead to building white elephants, but if this technology would mean jobs are created within the country that's a good thing. The employees will spend their money inside the country and pay tax rather than needing assistance by the state.
7. Re:This is only useful by budgenator · 2011-06-15 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  "The project is expected to bring 1,200 green construction jobs and, when completed, approximately 80 permanent jobs to this desert area." Abengoa Solar signs contract with PG&E to supply solar power in California, 2 billion dollars for 160 permanent jobs, hope the rest of the financials make more sense.
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
8. Re:This is only useful by couchslug · 2011-06-15 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  "if these are manufactured here. If this work goes to China (or spain), it really is a waste of money."
  Not if the US can purchase the products. After all, we owe the modern personal computer to American invention and Chinese manufacturing.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
9. Re:This is only useful by rally2xs · 2011-06-15 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  You want to see stuff built here? Then pass the Fair Tax. 22% of the price of goods built here is composed of the income tax costs to businesses that manufacture here. About half that is recoverable if income taxes went away, as they would if the Fair Tax was passed. That one thing would revitalize this country, end the recession practically overnight, and make the USA the newest, bestest tax haven for manufacturing on the planet.
  Or we can continue to "get those greedy b*****rds that are making profits, and... shoot ourselves in the foot every time. Corporate income taxes are an abomination, because corporations don't pay them. That's because the don't have any money. Corporate money looks like this:
  Corporate$$$ = Customer$$$ + Employee$$$ + Stockholder$$$
  So, try to "punish" a corporation with taxes, and customers simply pay more for goods, employees see smaller or no raises, and stockholders suffer smaller or absent dividends.
  And all that means that businessmen do the right thing for their business and manufacture overseas.
10. Re:This is only useful by shilly · 2011-06-16 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that the difference in manufacturing costs between China and the US could be closed by moving to a "Fair Tax", you might want to get a friend who can add to help you before you go shopping, or you're going to get stiffed every time. Company directors would be failing in their fiduciary duties if they repatriated jobs to the US simply based on a 22% or similar cut in the costs of manufacturing in the US following introduction of a new tax regime. There are order of magnitude differences in the cost base.
11. Re:This is only useful by rally2xs · 2011-06-16 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  You have any numbers for actually comparison?
  I do.
  It takes 30 - 33 hours for the Detroit-based auto companies to build a car. Wages are about $78/hr as a cost to the company, including the benefits and pension expenses and so forth. That's about $2500 of labor in each car. But for a $40K SUV, the tax costs to the company could be around $8,800.
  Now, the US auto companies are ALREADY competitive with the foreign car companies, so think how much better they would compete first if the could enslave the workforce, and take $2,500 off the price of their cars, or maybe recover even half of the $8,800 that it is costing them in taxes to build the car. $40,000 SUV becomes a $35,600 SUV with no US income tax expense? Think it would be more competitive?
12. Re:This is only useful by rally2xs · 2011-06-16 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs are created, as well as absolute zero pollution is generated during operation. It rivals nukes for that, consumes nothing that must be trucked to the site nor produces anything that must be trucked away from the site. I think it is "the answer" for long-term energy production as soon as we figure out the magic battery that can be charged up and will run things like cars, trucks, trains, etc. Trains can even have electricity delivered by overhead wires.
13. Re:This is only useful by shilly · 2011-06-17 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Seriously? You think that an 11% cut in the costs of a $40k US car would be make a really material difference in its competitiveness vs foreign car companies? You think that foreign car companies won't respond by innovating to cut their pricing yet further?
  Did you not read about the Tata Nano? $2.5k for a car. Sure, a POS that you wouldn't touch with a bargepole, but the point is that *that* is the kind of pricing achievable with an Indian cost base.
14. Re:This is only useful by rally2xs · 2011-06-17 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  "You think that foreign car companies won't respond by innovating to cut their pricing yet further?"
  No. If they could, they would. Now. That way, they'd capture more of the market. But the fact that they haven't indicates that they can't.
  "Did you not read about the Tata Nano?"
  Yeah, I did. It's a pile of c***. Read where one caught fire on the way home from the showroom. They can make go-karts all they want, but they wouldn't sell here, so it doesn't matter.
  And yeah, a $35.6K SUV that used to be $40K would sell much better, and take market share away from foreign manufacturers that would get no such price break. IOW, the Fair Tax amounts to a tariff, in that it lowers domestic prices but not foriegn prices.
15. Re:This is only useful by shilly · 2011-06-17 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  OK, we're now entering the realms of true fuckwittery.
  "No. If they could [lower their prices], they would. Now. That way, they'd capture more of the market. But the fact that they haven't indicates that they can't."
  Erm. Revenues = Prices * Volume. Manufacturers will make a tradeoff between pricing and volume. And manufacturers -- and indeed every commercial enterprises -- certainly do respond to pricing pressure by cutting their own costs base further and finding new ways to do so. This is the story of SouthWestern and the other low cost carriers. It's (part of) the story of Toyota.
  Sheesh. If you're gonna get a hard-on for pro-business gimmicks, you'll sound a lot more credible if you don't get basic commercial economics wrong.
A link to the actual press release by elrous0 · 2011-06-15 08:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

A link to the actual press release
First of all, these aren't grants or direct money (as the summary seems to imply), they're loan guarantees. And if you read the press release, it's pretty clear this is a helluva lot less about producing clean energy than producing jobs in California.
Like so many government-funded and government-backed programs these days (NASA, I'm looking in your direction), this is basically a just a jobs program. Some Senator gets to go back to his district and say he created jobs. Whether these plants actually ever create any energy is anyone's guess.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:A link to the actual press release by chemicaldave · 2011-06-15 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Whether these plants actually ever create any energy is anyone's guess.
  Without loan guarantees we would never know one way or the other.
2. Re:A link to the actual press release by bhcompy · 2011-06-15 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Problem is that these projects might not even get off the ground. There are environmental challenges in state and federal courts about the locations of these and the harm they cause to local wildlife. The Mojave project has already lost one battle and been forced to move to a secondary location. No Senator or Rep is going to touch it until it gets past green hurdles, and it probably won't given the strength of that lobby in CA.
3. Re:A link to the actual press release by Rei · 2011-06-15 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  . Whether these plants actually ever create any energy is anyone's guess.
  Um, huh? If you spend $2B on power plants that don't produce power, that's not a bragging point; that's the central point of your opponents' attack ads against you.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
4. Re:A link to the actual press release by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah! What's NASA ever done for anyone?
5. Re:A link to the actual press release by Bardwick · 2011-06-15 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with load guarantees. Kind of sounds familiar. Didn't we have some kind of economic collapse here recently? Uncle Sam is the cosigner for all of america.
6. Re:A link to the actual press release by elrous0 · 2011-06-15 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Depends. Since 1972, or before?
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
7. Re:A link to the actual press release by elrous0 · 2011-06-15 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, your Uncle's credit card is still valid...for now.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
8. Re:A link to the actual press release by jmottram08 · 2011-06-15 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is not about answering the question, its that the question takes 2 billion we dont have to answer.
9. Re:A link to the actual press release by jmottram08 · 2011-06-15 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  . . . Are you so naive to think that a congressman wasting 2b actually effects elections?
10. Re:A link to the actual press release by timeOday · 2011-06-15 09:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  if you read the press release, it's pretty clear this is a helluva lot less about producing clean energy than producing jobs in California
  Just because a press release is phrased a certain way doesn't mean a project is actually "about" that. The press release is just a gauge of today's political winds.
  Look at Secretary Chu's statement:
  
  "These projects represent an important step in the development of solar as an affordable, clean energy resource in this country," said Secretary Chu. "By investing in the commercial-scale deployment of solar technologies, we can create greater efficiencies that will lower the cost of solar power while creating jobs and increasing our global competitiveness in this key industry."
  What part of that is incorrect, or admits the possibility that this is "basically just a jobs program?" I don't see why Concentrated Solar can't be scaled up affordably.
11. Re:A link to the actual press release by PinchDuck · 2011-06-15 09:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You're right. What company in their right mind would want to produce something that is going to be in constant and ever increasing demand? They would have a guaranteed customer base, guaranteed scarcity, and guaranteed profits. Yup, no company in their right mind would ever want to be a part of that. Thank God that Uncle Sam is here to fill the gap. We should pour money into projects like this right up until the day we default.
12. Re:A link to the actual press release by Lawrence_Bird · 2011-06-15 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  Without loan guarantees we would never know one way or the other.
  Really? And why is that? Is it because the risk reward is too low for a private company to build a plant?
  
  lf a corporation (not necessarily an American one) thought they could profit by building one of these it would be built. That they will only do so with a government backstop against failure indicates these plants are not economically viable.
13. Re:A link to the actual press release by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-06-15 09:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yeah! It's not like NASA has any current missions that are providing valuable science to our society at all. It's nothing but a worthless jobs program!
  
  I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the rest of your post, but please educate yourself about the space industry before commenting on it. I'm getting really tired of correcting ignorance on what is supposed to be a News for Nerds site. Thanks.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
14. Re:A link to the actual press release by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  lf a corporation (not necessarily an American one) thought they could easily profit by building one of these, it would be built. That they will only do
  so with a government backstop against failure indicates these plants are not currently economically viable.
  The problem is that we don't know for certain that it will or will not be economically viable. All we have are guesstimates on its returns. Plus, the venture capitalists and investment banks want to see significant ROI quickly. They are impatient if it takes too long to realize the returns.
15. Re:A link to the actual press release by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  are not economically viable ... right now.
16. Re:A link to the actual press release by jklovanc · 2011-06-15 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but most of the NASA missions on that list will have no effect on the day-to-day life of people on earth. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not all that high on my priority list. Birth of the cosmos, water on Mars, xray radiation, etc. will not improve the quality of life here on earth. How about we deal with things here on earth before we spend money on the universe. Sure there are a few projects dealing with climatology that are important but most of them are cool but of no practical purpose.
17. Re:A link to the actual press release by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  If the projects succeed, as you seem to think they will, we will not have poured a dime into it. Look up loan guarantee.
18. Re:A link to the actual press release by nonguru · 2011-06-15 12:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I seem to remember a posting on Slashdot regarding "anti-intellectualism" amongst nerds. Not everything in life has to have a direct dollar value. Pure research may not have a direct practical outcome - ever - and when it does, it involves decades-long pay-off times, but I would not be arrogant enough to write it off totally. Some things have a 'utlity' value - it's valuable because we derive satsifaction from discovering new knowledge. (And I'm an ex-engineer having been involved in the most utilitarian of industries, i.e. telecoms switching, automotive electronics, airborne radar, etc. all of which rely on somebody else having done the basic physics covering electronics design over previous decades of research.)
19. Re:A link to the actual press release by interkin3tic · 2011-06-15 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  What company in their right mind would want to produce something that is going to be in constant and ever increasing demand?
  If there's an option that costs less but maybe has higher externalized costs (like in terms of pollution)? I don't know. I suppose that depends on what you mean by "right mind." If you mean "What their mindset should be if they weren't made up of a bunch of greedy bastards" then the answer would be all power companies.
  
  But "right mind" for companies seems to more often mean "PROFIT NOW NOW NOW!!!" So the answer is "None of them."
  
  Same reason why we use tax dollars to fund basic biomedical research: if profitability is not a sure and immediate thing, or if it's not the shortest path to money, companies aren't going to do it.
20. Re:A link to the actual press release by budgenator · 2011-06-15 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Usually it takes long enough for the plants to be either built and fail or to be abandoned, that people will forget who pushed it through; who was the Senator that the bridge to nowhere paid for?
  
  --
  Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
21. Re:A link to the actual press release by Lawrence_Bird · 2011-06-15 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  and that is exactly why the government should stay the fuck out of it. when the technology and/or demand makes it a viable project it will be built by private industry.
22. Re:A link to the actual press release by rahvin112 · 2011-06-15 14:52 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not a Dime. It's a a loan guarantee. It's entire purpose is to allow the borrower to borrow the money to build at government interest rates (currently 3%) rather than the market rates that would likely be MUCH MUCH higher for a power plant with an unproven design (by unproven I mean there aren't 50,000 of them). Something like this helps develop technology like this without high interest rates that make the project uneconomic. Because the reality is you can't build a power plant and make money at 9% interest rates and only proven technology (as in 20% of the nations power is generated by the technology) is given market rates.
  The single greatest barrier to the development of new technology is the interest rate barrier that applies to such projects. Banks assume because it's not "proven" that there is a higher risk of default and charge much higher interest rates. Those higher rates make projects ROI negative or so small as to essentially make the project worthless. If we want to move away from Coal power and to carbon-less sources of power we MUST provide loan guarantees and grants to move the projects from theory to reality. Unlike what politicians these days like to tell you the purpose of government is help move the infrastructure and the country as a whole forward. When you put market forces behind infrastructure you inevitably end up with little to no progress without economic incentive to move forward. Coal is cheap, the technology is proven, if we want to move away from coal (and I do) then Government needs to help find the alternative technology that's just as good because the reality is the banks don't like risk and power is a business where margins are razor thin. Power and Energy are national security issues, we've forgotten that as a nation, particularly if people like you post such sarcastic posts and ignore the reality of the market and it's driving forces.
23. Re:A link to the actual press release by narcc · 2011-06-15 16:46 · Score: 1
  
  End the pointless wars (the foreign ones and the one on drugs) and increase taxes. End the ridiculous military contracts, and close a whole bunch of military bases. Just for starters.
  Check it out here
  I'd also say kill the wasteful private prison system.
  Oh, you weren't serious? Figures.
  2 billion isn't a whole lot, and it's an investment that will pay for itself in infrastructure, jobs, and decreased dependence on fossil fuels. This project is just good stewardship.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
24. Re:A link to the actual press release by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:23 · Score: 0
  
  Concentrated Solar can't be scaled up affordability because the banksters say so and won't take the risk of loaning the money at rates that make it a worthwhile private venture. So, the 'market' doesn't move on it which also keeps startup costs higher further deterring progress. What is frustrating is how alternatives have always been up against "the market" which is loaded so much government aid for TRADITIONAL power generation it kills any real semblance to a "free" marketplace.
  Also stupid is how we religiously believe the free market hammer is the best tool for every problem regardless of reality. I wonder just how bad things will have to get before people start to criticize the capitalist religious zealotry behind the new depression. Robber barons were a problem during the great depression but what we have going on in this aspect on today's depression is far far greater despite the depression not being as great (yet.)
  Power monopolies like other monopoly basic services are by their situation very poorly suited for "market competition" because there is no market and their only competition is getting past government oversight and any reasoning the public may have. At least most of us still have public roads, police, fire...although those will be towards the end of the list for privatization because if they can sucker people into letting things degrade that far, those will be the next targets....
  If government did power and the grid, we'd have it done and it would be cheaper; there would be problems still because its politics either way and the public is still so stupid we have bridges falling down (the citizens are to blame for those.) But at least the people would be part of it and we'd have 1 less corrupting force to worry about.
25. Re:A link to the actual press release by Pinky's+Brain · 2011-06-15 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  And what if the oil facet gets turned off a little faster than expected? The free market doesn't deal well with once a century events ...
  Short and long term energy and food self sufficiency is right up there with national security with state responsibilities ... in fact you can't really have the latter without the former.
26. Re:A link to the actual press release by spauldo · 2011-06-15 18:52 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the high profile NASA missions have no direct effect on day to day life of the average Joe. It does have an effect on the future average Joe, because a lot of the technology created for the high profile missions does get used eventually for things that affect regular people. An example is the ion drive, which was tested on various pure science probes and is now used in satellites to control position and orientation, extending their service life due to not requiring as much fuel.
  There's a lot of low profile stuff that NASA does that we can't do without. Most of the low profile missions involve putting satellites in orbit. Our communication systems rely on them. A huge chunk of the transportation industry would be crippled without them. GPS navigation relies on them. Hell, television and radio rely on them. Commercial space companies aren't at a level to compete with this quite yet, although they're being helped along by... well, NASA.
  People also tend to forget the "Aeronautics" part of NASA, which does a lot of research for aircraft and missile systems. They partner with the big aircraft companies to test new designs and ideas. Some of those ideas end up with no practical use, and some of them do. It's up to the market to figure out how to commercialize them.
  Some of these things you mention (water on Mars, X-Ray radiation, etc.) will be important to us if we set up shop anywhere beyond LEO. That might not be important right at the moment, but it very well may be in the future; China has its eyes on the moon - are we willing to let them have it?
  There's always going to be budget pressures, even in good times. The scientists and engineers are specialized in what they do - you can't just turn off the space program and expect to start back where you left off. Look at Apollo - if we wanted to send people to the moon, we'd be starting from scratch, because most of the experts on our old technology are dead or retired. If we stop science research every time there's a budget shortfall, then it'll always be one step forward, one step back.
  
  --
  Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
27. Re:A link to the actual press release by Eivind · 2011-06-15 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of. Thing is, when you build something new, the unknown is one of the major risks. You don't -know- for sure how much it's gonna cost to build it, how long construction will take, how well it will perform, or how much and how expensive maintenance it will need over which timeframe.
  Once a technology is mature, the answers to these questions are known (atleast aproximately), which makes it possible to make a sensible calculation as to if building a new plant is economically profitable or not.
  But answering the questions has a value by itself ! If the answer is: these things are profitable, it's beneficial to society that we learn this answer as soon as possible. And even a negative result, teaches us something.
  Furthermore, experience and learning tends to decrease the costs of subsequent plants - you sometimes do expensive mistakes when you're building something for the first time, many of those can be avoided when you know about them. Thus it can, and often is, the case that building the first of a certain kind of object, is a net-loss, yet the objects, including later models, as a whole are economically viable.
  Funding research and development of promising new technologies ain't the dumbest way of spending tax-money. Sure, some of the time, the technologies funded end up going nowhere. That's just how research works: you don't *know* what's going to work, until you've tried it.
28. Re:A link to the actual press release by jez9999 · 2011-06-15 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry but most of the NASA missions on that list will have no effect on the day-to-day life of people on earth.
  Did the moon landings have an effect on the day-to-day life of people on Earth?
  Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not all that high on my priority list. Birth of the cosmos, water on Mars, xray radiation, etc. will not improve the quality of life here on earth.
  X-ray radiation? Haha. If we'd had your Luddite attitude throughout all of our history, we'd still be living in caves. Take your anti-intellectualism and shove it.
  
  --
  == Jez ==
  Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
29. Re:A link to the actual press release by rally2xs · 2011-06-15 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  If the project succeeds, the envirowackos will sue to stop it, or sue to stop the construction of the power wires that are needed to distribute the power, or some other weak excuse to attack the USA, which is their true aim. They are a bunch of commies / socialists / marxists that are bent on the destruction of the USA as a capitalist society, and conversion of it to the yoke of these leftist, enslaving ideologies.
30. Re:A link to the actual press release by AmiMoJo · 2011-06-16 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Plus it provides an incentive to build it in California rather than another state where they won't get the same deal.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re:A link to the actual press release by AmiMoJo · 2011-06-16 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  I thought the jobs generated were part of the value we get from space agencies. In fact at the height of the financial crisis the UK government was ploughing lots of money into government contracts to stimulate the economy.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
32. Re:A link to the actual press release by shilly · 2011-06-16 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  that makes no sense! the government is stepping in *precisely because* the plants aren't economically viable right now. It is saying "there are considerations beyond economics that make this subsidy worthwhile" (energy security, creating jobs today, etc etc).
33. Re:A link to the actual press release by zippthorne · 2011-06-16 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on who's paying for it.
  The government doesn't have any of its own money. Everything it has it has extracted from YOU with the implied threat of violence. That's a barely acceptable way of funding a military (you can't *not* fund a military, it's either your military or.. someone else's... Same with police forces), but it taints everything the money touches.
  Is nasa doing good science? From a scientific standpoint, perhaps. But from a moral standpoint, it's really not.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
34. Re:A link to the actual press release by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  lf a corporation (not necessarily an American one) thought they could profit by building one of these it would be built. That they will only do so with a government backstop against failure indicates these plants are not economically viable.
  The interest on $2,000,000,000 at a high-risk rate (because this is new technology and such) may be as high as 15% if they were to get bank financing (if they could even get bank financing). So the annual cost for just debt service is $300 million a year. Get them a loan at government rates of 3% and the debt service is $60 million a year. It may well be profitable with the lower interest rate and not at the higher rate. If the cost of capital is excluded, the plants are currently economically viable. If the government can take a no-cost action to reduce the cost of capital to promote growth, why are you against it?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
35. Re:A link to the actual press release by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  And if it would be viable if the government weren't subsidizing coal and oil, and you have the constraint where you are not allowed to adjust those subsidies, what would you do?
  
  You can choose to not subsidize anything else, giving solar a competitive disadvantage, or you can choose to subsidize solar at the minimum level to promote growth (and that subsidy, unlike the oil and coal ones, costs nothing).
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
36. Re:A link to the actual press release by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  Senator Stevens and Representative Young were the bridge to nowhere people. No one seemed to notice that the one Stevens pushed for would connect Anchorage to Don Young Way (and yes the same person as Representative Young) across a long and expensive bridge where a good bit of the land on the other side is owned by Representative Don Young and his family and friends. Nor did anyone notice that the other bridge to nowhere pushed by Representative Young created a road that took longer to drive than taking the existing ferry, was massively longer than it needed to be so that it could pass through land owned by family of Ted Stevens (not sure if he was planning on making a killing on the increase of property value like the other bridge to nowhere, or whether he was just going to milk the emanate domain, or even possibly, Ben Stevens just didn't like taking the ferry and so he wanted the federal taxpayers to spend billions of dollars for his personal convenience in getting to his land).
  
  Ted Stevens was voted out because he accepted bribes and was convicted of it. However, the conviction was overturned because of proprietorial misconduct, despite the clear receipts documenting the bribes ("I do not recall" still works over 20 years after Reagan pioneered it). Don Young is still the only Representative from Alaska.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
37. Re:A link to the actual press release by jmottram08 · 2011-06-16 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  lol. justify everything with jobs or infrastructure or decreased use of fossil fuels. Guess what? WE DONT HAVE THE MONEY. full stop. cut programs, raise taxes, eat the rich, do whatever you want to do to get money, then we can argue about what to spend it on.
  2b isnt a lot, haha you sound like a politician. "I dont care if we dont have the money to pay for it. . . think about the environment!". To which i respond "Think about a defaulting treasure auction", but no one wants to talk about that, which WILL happen in the next 10 years, we can just talk about climate change. sigh@america
38. Re:A link to the actual press release by rhakka · 2011-06-16 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think the USA's capitalist society is doing a fine job of destroying itself, really. the capitalists all grew fat enough to buy the government.
39. Re:A link to the actual press release by narcc · 2011-06-16 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  lol. justify everything with jobs or infrastructure or decreased use of fossil fuels.
  Not everything, just this specific project. Read much?
  
  cut programs, raise taxes
  Isn't this exactly what I was advocating? Did you even bother to read my post?
  
  "I dont care if we dont have the money to pay for it. . . think about the environment!"
  When did I say anything about the environment? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
  Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension before repeating nonsense you heard on whatever idiotic right-wing blog you frequent.
  
  To which i respond "Think about a defaulting treasure auction", but no one wants to talk about that, which WILL happen in the next 10 years
  This is how I know you're an idiot. "defaulting treasure auction" -- it's "treasury". Honestly, I doubt you even know what a treasury auction is.
  Infrastructure and renewable energy are smart investments for the reasons I stated earlier. Remember: This is money already allocated for the loan guarantee program. Moreover, it's a *loan* not a grant. Even if it wasn't, we'd still see a positive return on that investment from the high-quality jobs created (and that's just one reason).
  It's typical of the right to make a lot of noise about an issued, then do nothing about it. (Didn't I hear "jobs jobs jobs" during the midterms only to see nothing job-related happen once they took over the house? Oh, yeah, they were too busy making *really* sure that federal funds don't pay for abortion. Small government, unless it's a "moral" issue -- then more regulation and more intrusion is okay in their twisted minds...)
  Take a look at the link I sent earlier. It seems that the American people can do a better job at cutting spending that our congressional moral majority. How did they manage to find more money?
  They did exactly what the GOP refuse to do, they cut defense and INCREASED spending on job training, higher education aid, energy conservation, and renewable energy. Yes, Social Security is okay, as is Medicare, and other social programs that the American People find valuable.
  See, Real Americans want America to be great -- that means good jobs, renewable energy, strong infrastructure, and social programs that allow ALL Americans equal opportunity.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
40. Re:A link to the actual press release by jklovanc · 2011-06-16 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  X-ray radiation? Haha. If we'd had your Luddite attitude throughout all of our history, we'd still be living in caves. Take your anti-intellectualism and shove it.
  First I am not a Luddite. I embrace all new technology and so not sabotage it. Second, I am not an anti-intellectualist. I am a pro-usefulness. When we can afford it we should do "pure research"; now is not the time.
  I think what confuses me the most is that much of the research being done today will not bear fruit for decades if not centuries. That research can be done later. Ion drives, climatology satellites, solar observatories, GPS satellites; all excellent works. Sending a spacecraft to take pictures of Pluto? Not useful. I would rather have a working electricity grid on earth today than a few high resolution pictures of Pluto. But electricity is not a sexy as Pluto.
41. Re:A link to the actual press release by mattack2 · 2011-06-16 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't know the exact things you're pointing out, but the very fact that it was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" means that people *did* notice the ridiculousness of it.
42. Re:A link to the actual press release by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  Wait, so your argument is "I'm too stupid to know the facts, all I need is one stupid sound bite to make up my mind."
  
  The morons like you are why people get what they want when they call things "death taxes" and "death committees". Oooh, someone gave it a bad name, it must be a bad thing.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
43. Re:A link to the actual press release by mattack2 · 2011-06-16 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  That's not *AT ALL* what I said, and you don't need to be insulting.
  I simply stated that people generally knew that the bridge was a waste of money, even if they didn't all know exactly why.
  (BTW, the term you're looking for is "death panels", and I really don't know why people are so against them. I know that that argument was TOTALLY MADE UP, but if my taxes are being taken away for other people's health care, bring on the "death panels"!)
44. Re:A link to the actual press release by AK+Marc · 2011-06-17 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  "the very fact that it was called the "Bridge to Nowhere" means that people *did* notice the ridiculousness of it."
  
  All that meant is that someone wanted you to think it was ridiculous. Whether it is or isn't is unrelated to the tags assigned to it by opponents. One was a bridge to a "large" airport (large by Alaska standards). The other was a bridge between the most populous area in the state and the second most populous area in the state (well, a shortcut between the two, in a manner of speaking). Neither was to "nowhere" but both were very expensive for what would be a relatively low use in a low population state. Whether worth having is a matter of opinion where the best soundbite won. Sadly, that's what US democracy has been reduced to.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
45. Re:A link to the actual press release by jeppen · 2011-06-18 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's not high quality jobs. More money (for the same production) means more labor, that is, lowered productivity, i.e. low quality jobs. That doesn't mean those particular jobs are badly paid or anything like that, of course, as subsidies can create wealth in a sector. But overall and on average, that nation's wages and GDP will be lower as these jobs are forced upon us. "Renewable" is simply not a useful term. Renewable electrons doesn't have better characteristics. Renewable sources aren't guaranteed to be less environmentally damaging, nor cheaper.
Who let the cat out of the bag? by coldfarnorth · 2011-06-15 08:31 · Score: 1

Anyone care to take bets on how long before some senator/representative (likely from a state where coal or oil extraction is a major source of revenue) denounces this as the perfect example of government waste and interference in "free market" for energy?

--
Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
1. Re:Who let the cat out of the bag? by ArsonSmith · 2011-06-15 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying it's not?
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
2. Re:Who let the cat out of the bag? by yarnosh · 2011-06-15 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Solar-thermal is a proven technology. And besides, it is just a loan guarantee. Not a grant.
3. Re:Who let the cat out of the bag? by OutSourcingIsTreason · 2011-06-15 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  The energy market is certainly NOT free. Oil is heavily subsidized by Uncle Sam with billions spent in tax giveaways to oil companies and trillions for that oil war in Iraq.
  
  --
  "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
4. Re:Who let the cat out of the bag? by deglr6328 · 2011-06-15 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I'm from liberal about-to-legalize-gay-marriage (wo0t!) New York and I think it's a ridiculous waste of money too. 2 Billion dollars for a 500 megawatt generating plant? Please. This is some kind of sick joke.
  The 500 MW is obviously peak power output, meaning that average power is going to be 200 MW, TOPS. 2 BILLION dollars for a 150 MW generating station. That's beyond pathetic. A natural gas fired station that provided that kind of power output could be built for 5% of that kind of money. The argument for this being a good investment into the technology is even more absurd. It's just a solar thermal plant using hot oil /molten salt. We've been doing this stone-age level crap since the early 70's.
  Do I really need to explain what kind of advancements the nuclear fusion community could do with 2 billion dollars? We're right on the edge (like, this year) of demonstrating fusion ignition in the laboratory at the National Ignition Facility, a lab that houses the most powerful laser in the world and the largest, most complicated optical system ever constructed, at a cost barely more than 50% of this useless, make-work, feelgood project. $2 billion could go a long way toward building a gigawatt level power plant demonstration reactor after NIF achieves ignition, instead of wasting it on this nonsense that produces laughably insignificant amounts of energy.
  
  --
  - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
5. Re:Who let the cat out of the bag? by oiron · 2011-06-15 16:52 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I'm from liberal about-to-legalize-gay-marriage (wo0t!) New York and I think it's a ridiculous waste of money too. 2 Billion dollars for a 500 megawatt generating plant? Please. This is some kind of sick joke.
  The 500 MW is obviously peak power output, meaning that average power is going to be 200 MW, TOPS. 2 BILLION dollars for a 150 MW generating station. That's beyond pathetic. A natural gas fired station that provided that kind of power output could be built for 5% of that kind of money. The argument for this being a good investment into the technology is even more absurd. It's just a solar thermal plant using hot oil /molten salt. We've been doing this stone-age level crap since the early 70's.
  In the same program, there seem to be a $2Bn grant to Areva and another 8.3 billion one to Georgia power (you'll have to scroll a bit to get to the table - the article is actually critical of the loan guarantee). And a few hundred million here and there to others. The grant to Abengoa seems to be 1.4 billion, and the other one seems to be $400 million (so, it's about 200 million short of the 2 billion claimed in TFS).
  Apparently, Abenoga achieving a 30% higher energy efficiency by changing the design; that's definitely worth a few million right there. The other plant costs $400 million, and it uses 'conventional' solar technology that's been around for decades.
  
  Do I really need to explain what kind of advancements the nuclear fusion community could do with 2 billion dollars? We're right on the edge (like, this year) of demonstrating fusion ignition in the laboratory at the National Ignition Facility, a lab that houses the most powerful laser in the world and the largest, most complicated optical system ever constructed, at a cost barely more than 50% of this useless, make-work, feelgood project. $2 billion could go a long way toward building a gigawatt level power plant demonstration reactor after NIF achieves ignition, instead of wasting it on this nonsense that produces laughably insignificant amounts of energy.
  Unfortunately for that argument, fusion always seems 10 years off; right now, I'd rather invest the same money in solar or wind, in hopes of improving efficiency to build plants that we can use in the next two-three years rather than wait for fusion, which is just around the corner. No, really. We haven't achieved energy production yet, but we'll do so if you invest in us exclusively! Just wait and watch!
  And until then, continue using coal and natural gas. Oh, and nuclear fission, of course. Except that fission plants are expensive too, and take about 10 years to complete, anyway. Forget investing in anything else!
  Thanks, I think I'd rather have an expensive solar plant, as opposed to a non-existent fission plant!
6. Re:Who let the cat out of the bag? by coldfarnorth · 2011-06-16 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the quotation marks in my original post.
  
  --
  Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
Payment or loan? by hackertourist · 2011-06-15 08:31 · Score: 1

TFT talks about a payment, but if you follow links you end up at this page which talks about loan guarantees instead.
1. Re:Payment or loan? by jmottram08 · 2011-06-15 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  money saved is money earned.
Is this the way we want to go? by bjd1970 · 2011-06-15 08:35 · Score: 2

Is concentrating solar power into "power plants" the best way? Wouldn't it make more sense to distribute the collection over a large area, namely every persons house?
1. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Mirrors are cheaper than PV panels.
2. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by vlm · 2011-06-15 08:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Is concentrating solar power into "power plants" the best way? Wouldn't it make more sense to distribute the collection over a large area, namely every persons house?
  Big businesses make better campaign contributors than "every persons"
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by ArhcAngel · 2011-06-15 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  How would companies get paid if you were allowed to make your own power? Communist!
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
4. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by gnick · 2011-06-15 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  One of the several advantages that this type of plant provides is continuous power - Rain or shine. I guess you COULD set something like that up at home if you've got a big yard for mirrors, but personally I don't want a basement full of molten salt. Not to mention that I enjoy turning my lights on when it's dark, not just when the sun's shining. The battery alternative is just environmentally irresponsible and kind of a PITA. For these plants, you basically need a bunch of glass (where will we ever find that?), a bunch of salt (there must be some floating around somewhere), and a turbine.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
5. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by gnick · 2011-06-15 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  How would companies get paid if you were allowed to make your own power?
  Allowed to make your own power? Are people actually being prevented by companies from installing solar panels now? I know some home-owners associations have blocked them, but they're not the power company and are typically run democratically by the home-owners.
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
6. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by hackertourist · 2011-06-15 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You need both. Solar power is low-density, so you need a lot of area to gather enough power.
  When you install PV on rooftops, it doesn't provide enough power for buildings with more than a couple of floors. I did some calculations recently for my own apartment building: a roof full of PV panels provided just enough power for one floor of the building, assuming the national average domestic power consumption.
  CSP can supplement power generation for high-density areas (cities). It can also easily provide nighttime power by using heat storage. This is more difficult to do with house-sized PV (you need huge battery banks in each house, or a central storage system, e.g. a pumped water storage facility).
7. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by blair1q · 2011-06-15 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  But if you make the mirrors out of PV panels, they pay for themselves in just 10 years.
8. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by b0bby · 2011-06-15 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up. PV isn't cost effective yet; thermal plants with molten salt reservoirs can be.
9. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Vegemeister · 2011-06-15 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  No. It wouldn't make sense. The economies of scale just aren't there for distributed generation. It is a libertarian pipe dream.
10. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because mirrors are cheap, and solar panels are expensive.
  In the case of most concentrated solar, it is mirrors used to heat a more conventional style boiler, and no solar panels at all.
11. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by hackertourist · 2011-06-15 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  PV isn't cost effective yet
  Come again? A home PV installation is currently cost-effective even here (.nl), you can recover your investment in something like 12 years. It makes more sense to invest in a PV installation than to put the money in a savings account.
12. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think it would even work on a small scale installation. Too much heat loss as a percentage of storage capacity.
13. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:15 · Score: 0
  
  Is concentrating solar power into "power plants" the best way? Wouldn't it make more sense to distribute the collection over a large area, namely every persons house?
  YES, IT IS THE BEST WAY. The efficiency in these large plants are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than photo-voltaics.
14. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  You forget not every place has the Dutch ~50% tax on electricity.
  That makes a big difference for making private energy generation profitable.
  --
  Teun
15. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by mdsolar · 2011-06-15 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Thermal tracking systems can collect more energy if there is direct sunlight. Clouds really cause them problems though. In the desert, these systems can make the most sense. Where there are clouds, such as in Germany, PV does better. It does not care all that much about the angle the light is coming from, including from all angles. It is not clear how much more costs can fall for thermal solar power plants. These sound like they may cost 4 or 5 dollars a Watt. PV will certainly cost less, much less, than this in the next ten years. You can get Evergreen panels for $1.60/W retail these days and if you want to set them up on old tires in your yard you can get a system in for $2.50/W including the inverter. Working on the roof will cost more. But, in new construction, the cost may be getting to $3/W quite soon.
16. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Grishnakh · 2011-06-15 09:53 · Score: 2
  
  It also doesn't make sense unless you own your own home, and also intend to live there until you die. For the rest of us who either rent, or will probably move in 2-10 years, investing in PV panels is stupid. I don't know about Holland, but here in the USA people rarely stay in one house unless they're retired. And retired people generally don't have the extra cash to invest in a PV installation since they're on fixed incomes.
17. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by afidel · 2011-06-15 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  They aren't cost effective if you have to store your own electricity. The only people doing local storage are those where a grid tie is prohibitively expensive, but using the grid as your storage system doesn't scale well (yet).
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
18. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Grishnakh · 2011-06-15 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about where you live, but where I live, the amount of power I need when it's dark is pretty low: just lights (CF), refrigerator, computer, etc. In the daytime, however, we have to run the A/C nearly constantly. Solar power is perfect for this environment as it provides all the power right when I need it the most to run the A/C.
19. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Rei · 2011-06-15 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, PV panels are half what they were a couple years ago, now that there's no silicon production shortage. And even inverter prices are down from where they used to be; a couple years ago when I looked, the cheapest I found was $0.70/W; now I'm finding some under $0.50/W.
  I'm thinking about doing my own rooftop install, but I don't want to end up with some sort of ghetto solar panel system. Are there any places you can go to learn about how to do it *properly*, in line with manufacturer specifications? I'd leave the grid hookup to a pro (as well as the requisite tree-topping we'd need done). But if it wasn't for installation labor costs, I'd be able to easily justify a solar install even up here in Iowa.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
20. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by mean+pun · 2011-06-15 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Is concentrating solar power into "power plants" the best way? Wouldn't it make more sense to distribute the collection over a large area, namely every persons house?
  As I understand it, this method is cheaper per megawatt than PV panels are, and it is also able to generate energy at night. Downsides are that it works best on a large scale, and that if ever the molten salt would solidify, the plant would be dead. It's also relatively unproven technology that due to the large size requires large investments.
  So is this the way to go? It seems to me that there will be circumstances where this makes more sense, and circumstances where PV panels make more sense. Therefore, this loan guarantee looks like excellent use of public money: it puts a little lubrication in the economy where it can do a lot of good, and where the risks are relatively low. I wish all public money was spent so well.
21. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by mdsolar · 2011-06-15 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  I have not done in myself so I can't make a list of don't do's. I found this site which talks about things I've heard are important. http://www.solarexpert.com/instroof5.html I'd suggest getting several estimates now. Pick the lowest one, take 30% off and then let each contractor know that you would be ready to go forward when the price falls that far. Here are your incentives: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?getRE=1?re=undefined&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=IA Doesn't look like anything important is expiring but check yourself.
22. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by interkin3tic · 2011-06-15 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  It also doesn't make sense unless you own your own home, and also intend to live there until you die. For the rest of us who either rent, or will probably move in 2-10 years, investing in PV panels is stupid.
  Only if you don't mention it to the realator or inspector. Otherwise it will increase the resale value of your home, much as any other improvement would. Savings on the electrical bill can be quite easily factored into price and should factor into the "is it worth it" equation.
23. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Grishnakh · 2011-06-15 13:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Only if you don't mention it to the realator or inspector. Otherwise it will increase the resale value of your home, much as any other improvement would. Savings on the electrical bill can be quite easily factored into price and should factor into the "is it worth it" equation.
  Sorry, no.
  Improvements do add to the value of a home, but not anywhere near what they cost in general. Remember, I'm talking about the USA here, and in America, there's one thing both buyers and their loan officers look at when buying and financing a house: cost per square foot. Adding $30k in solar panels doesn't add any square footage, but it adds a lot of cost. So if you try to price your home accordingly, the buyer and bank are going to see that and shy away in favor of a cheaper home. Even if the buyer is smart enough to understand a higher monthly payment equals much lower electric bills, the bank isn't going to care: their appraiser is going to say "this house has a much higher price/s.f. than all the comparables in the area", so the bank is going to refuse to finance it unless the buyer ponies up a much, much larger downpayment.
  This is basically why all the lower-end houses (i.e., less than $1 million) here (esp. new ones) are cheaply-made pieces of shit, because it doesn't pay to buy quality. The buyers (the ones you'll be trying to sell your house to when you're ready to move on) don't care, and if they do, they can't get financing, so you won't recoup your investment as you'll have to drop your price to be competitive with all the other POSes in the area. Sure, you'll be able to get a few thousand more for a nicely fixed-up home than one that's as cheap as the builder could make it, but it won't be enough to recover your investment in fancy plumbing fixtures and granite (and solar panels), so if you buy those things, make sure you're buying them for your own enjoyment, not because you think you're going to get your money back, because you won't.
24. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by foniksonik · 2011-06-15 14:52 · Score: 1
  
  Big business also pays more for power and who's going to sell the power from a grid of homes? There's no profit there, so nobody would do it. No power for big business == no jobs, no houses with solar panels.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
25. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Rei · 2011-06-15 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks! :)
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
26. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by LanMan04 · 2011-06-16 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  This is basically why all the lower-end houses (i.e., less than $1 million)
  o_O
  So, do you live in the DC metro area? LA perhaps?
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
27. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by zippthorne · 2011-06-16 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  It's hard though for the smoothing. The thermal storage tank suffers from square-cube law problems: a smaller tank is going to lose heat to its environment much more quickly, and/or require more exotic insulation.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
28. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by ArhcAngel · 2011-06-16 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  There have been several technologies over the last 10-20 years that could have easily and somewhat economically decentralized the grid. Some were even developed and marketed for home use only to quickly and quietly disappear. While solar panels work they are extremely inefficient and the cost of entry is still prohibitively expensive making them less competitive with your local power co.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
29. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by b0bby · 2011-06-16 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I was talking about the US. Here (Maryland), electricity is about $0.11/kwh, so payoff is more like 30 years if everything goes well. Not worth it for a utility company to invest in. But concentrated thermal solar can still be an economical option for a company.
  When it gets down to about a 10-12 year payback I'll install PV on my house, but with an average insolation of 4.5 hours it's going to be a few years before it makes sense. In Florida & California it will make sense sooner.
30. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Grishnakh · 2011-06-16 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  No, I live in Phoenix. The $1 million figure is correct: even a "fancy" $500k or $750k house here, while giant, is still a piece of shit if you take the walls off and look at the construction quality and the design and architecture.
  This is true everywhere in the country, not just here. Builders don't build quality homes, unless they're custom-building multimillion dollar estates for rich people. Even then I'd be doubtful unless the buyer is either intimately involved in the construction process to make sure it's done right, or the buyer has hired Amish or Mennonites.
31. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe you. I believe that there have been numerous products marketed over the years, but not that any worked. Perhaps the reason they were pulled is because they were fraudulent?
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
32. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by Xacid · 2011-06-16 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Shit, I can't figure out if that was a troll or not.
  My "meager" $132k house survived 145mph winds back during Hurricane Hugo and just needed new shingles (according to the previous owners).
  However, to some degree they're right - you wont see shit for returns on many improvements you make on your home in this market. You could 10 or so years ago though.
  But I'm currently fixing my house up and updating/renovating various items, not to appease a future buyer, but to improve the quality and aesthetics of my home for myself and my family. It's all about priorities and plans at a given time.
33. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by mattack2 · 2011-06-16 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean using the grid as your storage system doesn't scale well?
  If everyone has solar, providing a significant portion of their daytime energy use, doesn't that mean that the power plants have to just provide base load (+ times when it's raining)?
34. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by jeppen · 2011-06-18 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt that it is cost effective even in NL without subsidies. Also, I suspect that you disregard interest. If you disagree, please provide a back-of-envelope calculation on how you reach break-even in 12 years.
35. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by hackertourist · 2011-06-19 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  My BOE (actually a spreadsheet that's lived on my computer for a couple of years now):
  Wp required 1687,5 Wp (that's required for my home, for a total of 1350 kWh/y, at 100 Wp=80 kWh/y)
  price/Wp 2 E (grabbed from the first webpage I could find for actual panels that can be bought today)
  inverter: E 1200
  Total: 4575 E ex installation
  Electricity per kWh 0,21 E as per my current contract
  savings per year 282,69 E, or 6% of my investment. If I had put the investment into a bank account, i'd have had half that as interest.
  break-even after 16,18 year without subsidies at the current price of electricity
  Installation cost adds another E 500 in materials on a flat roof, or a little under 2 years
  Subsidy was E0,24 per kWh last year (this year's figures haven't been published yet), that's E 324 per year, so that would more halve the break-even time.
  The 12 years in my original post came from a recent newspaper article so I can't reproduce that.
  I disregarded interest on a loan because that's the situation I'm in. Current interest rates on a home mortgage are around 4%, so then you'd have a savings of E 100 and break-even after max 45 y (assuming you don't pay off the loan)
  I'd do this tomorrow if it weren't for me living in a rented apartment.
36. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by jeppen · 2011-06-19 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  Your figures seems reasonable, but I wonder if you omitted labor costs for installation. Also, you seem to disregard any maintenance costs, as well as the system aging and having a reduced production of around 1% per year. If you factor those in, and also the reduced worth of your system as it ages, I think you'll find that this investment can never, unsubsidised, compete even with inflation, much less with a mortage reduction. If it can't compete with inflation, it is losing money. Btw, I'm surprised to hear about your extreme electricity prices, which certainly help your calculation a lot. You pay some three times the price of the levelized cost of wind.
37. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by hackertourist · 2011-06-20 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yup, BOE and tailored to my situation, I planned on DIY installation. Maintenance? You may have to clean the panels occasionally. Panels are sold with a 25-year warranty, but are generally expected to hold out longer than that.
  I used today's price for electricity, but in the past 10 years there's been a 80% increase. Oil became 5x more expensive. That's a trend I expect to continue.
  My electricity price contains taxes (about 100%) and transport/connection tariffs.
  All in all, I'm perhaps too optimistic about PV at the moment. But the time when PV is cost-effective is not far off. PV panel prices halved (from E 4.20/Wp to E2/Wp) in two years.
38. Re:Is this the way we want to go? by jeppen · 2011-06-20 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Many seems to consider grid parity to be kind of reaching nirvana. To me, it is the point where suboptimizations set in for real. A rational government would, for instance, lower taxes on electricity to postpone grid parity. Otherwise, home owners would sink 0.2E, all of which would be gone, into PV instead of electricity companies sinking 0.06E into wind, with 0.1E in taxes to use by the government for health care, pensions and stuff, and 0.04E to misc stuff such as ensuring a good grid. I would definitely not be so sure about increasing electricity prices, btw. As I said, 0.2E seems extreme and way above any reasonable free market equilibrium. Such a high price must depend on high taxes and barriers to new production - that is, they are propped up by politics. Also, consider that if your high expectations on PV proves correct, that would, along with hourly pricing, result in lower electricity prices during the day, which will lower your profits. Also, more wind, shale gas, Saharan concentrated solar or the unlikely nuclear renaissance could all lower prices quite a bit.
Energy != power by Scareduck · 2011-06-15 08:39 · Score: 2

As you correctly note, the estimated amount of energy harvested from this project remains undisclosed.
The "enough to power X number of homes" is therefore a kind of fraud.

--
Dog is my co-pilot.
1. Re:Energy != power by Grishnakh · 2011-06-15 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  Not really. Whether you're powering homes or factories or offices, consumers use far more power during the daytime than during the night.
  It's even more pronounced here in Arizona, where we blast the A/C during the day because it's so damn hot, and then don't use it much at night (or not at all, in the winter) because it's so much cooler. Because of this, we actually use our nuclear power here to pump water uphill during the nighttime, and then generate hydroelectric power with that water during the daytime to meet peak load needs.
  So a solar (thermal) plant making lots more power during the daytime is not really a problem in many places. A few of these would be great in combination with a nuke plant, with the nuke plant providing the base load at all hours and the solar plants providing power for peak loads.
2. Re:Energy != power by afidel · 2011-06-15 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The second plant is planned for 250MWe which means the nominal electrical output will be 250MW, peak may be higher and maintenance or something like an ash cloud may lower it temporarily but on average the design is for 250MW of base load output 24x7.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
3. Re:Energy != power by wisty · 2011-06-16 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Solar and wind both compete with base load sources (like nuclear) and are complimented by variable sources (like gas and hydro). If you go solar / wind, then coal / nuclear plants lose, and gas / hydro plants win.
  As you said - use solar, wind, or nukes to pump hydro if you have excess power, then use hydro or gas when you need a boost.
4. Re:Energy != power by Grishnakh · 2011-06-16 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but I disagree: you need power at night, and nuke plants are good for that. If you set your "base load" at whatever your lowest load is, which here in Arizona is the load during the nighttime, then you can use solar to produce extra power during the daytime when everyone has their A/C on.
  Assuming for the sake of argument that this solar-thermal tech is all great and has no downsides and we're trying to get away from fossil fuels, why would you burn fossil fuels at night instead of using nuclear? Or why would you waste power pumping hydro if you don't have to, since that process is inherently very inefficient?
  You're making statements about competition and complementation without any reasoning to back them up. The main problem with solar (and wind too) is that it's highly variable: it doesn't make much power at night (PV makes nothing at night, solar thermal, according to the comments here, makes a little because the salt is already molten and acts as a thermal "battery"). We don't need very much power at night, we only need it in the daytime. Why on earth would solar, itself a variable source, compete with a base load source ? That really makes no sense.
Mojave Solar Project details by hackertourist · 2011-06-15 08:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Actual information about the Mojave Solar Project can be found here and here.
The technology used in the MSP isn't entirely new (has been used in at least one other plant) but looks to be an incremental improvement.
The plant features heat storage using molten salt, and won't be using fossil fuels as nighttime backup.
1. Re:Mojave Solar Project details by pngai · 2011-06-15 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  The nice thing about solar thermal is that if it were ever desired, the operating hours and/or output can easily be extended by quickly adding a cheap natural gas burner as a heat supplement. If the turbines become a limiting factor, they are relatively quick to add also (compared to other parts of a power plant). Ivanpah was deliberately sited near a natural gas pipeline for this reason.
Parabolic Focusing Panels by ArhcAngel · 2011-06-15 08:41 · Score: 1

Basically focusing the suns rays into a laser beam that super heats salt. The superheated salt runs a steam turbine. Of course the mirrors could be focused to take down overhead aircraft or satellites as well.

--
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
1. Re:Parabolic Focusing Panels by gnick · 2011-06-15 08:50 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Of course the mirrors could be focused to take down overhead aircraft or satellites as well.
  OK - Now I'm sold. The equivalent of burning an ant w/ a magnifying glass, but huge and in space? Count me in!
  
  --
  He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
2. Re:Parabolic Focusing Panels by Rei · 2011-06-15 08:53 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Which would be just awesome. ;) Can you imagine getting the automated phone call:
  To PG&E customers in your area: We regret to inform you that your area will be experiencing rolling blackouts this afternoon as we utilize our power plants as massive solar death rays against the hardware of our nation's foes. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. As a token of apology, we invite you to enjoy a spectacular light show in the sky at no expense to you.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
3. Re:Parabolic Focusing Panels by hackertourist · 2011-06-15 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Of course the mirrors could be focused to take down overhead aircraft or satellites as well.
  No they can't. These plants use parabolic trough mirrors. I.e. you have a row of mirrors, and the energy is focused into a pipe that's suspended in front of the row.
4. Re:Parabolic Focusing Panels by ArhcAngel · 2011-06-15 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  hackertourist==buzzkill
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
5. Re:Parabolic Focusing Panels by chuckugly · 2011-06-15 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Except that it's almost completely different from a laser beam /pedantic A laser is phase-coherent, with all that implies, whereas this is a very intense spot of sunlight.
6. Re:Parabolic Focusing Panels by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:05 · Score: 0
  
  Attention Freeside and New Vegas: this afternoon, the Brotherhood of Steel will be employing the power of HELIOS 1 to activate the ARCHIMEDES II satellite network to burn Caesar's legion. Neighborhood power conservation measures will be in effect, with local paladins checking for conspicuous usage. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Price per Home by im_thatoneguy · 2011-06-15 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

$2B in loan guarantees for 100,000 homes. I wonder if they're guaranteeing the entire cost of the plants or just a part of the financing.
That would work out to $20k per home.
Average monthly bill for a home is approximately $100 a month. So $1200 per year. 12 year pay-off ignoring operating expenses and maintenance.
Sounds like a good investment.
1. Re:Price per Home by swb · 2011-06-15 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but you don't get 100% of the power bill for the construction of the plant.
  Think double or triple your pay off period once you factor in ongoing labor, maintenance, etc. 30 year payoff.
2. Re:Price per Home by blair1q · 2011-06-15 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  $2B in loan guarantees is not $2B in cost. Unless the plant goes belly-up, which should be a low-probability event for something this simple. The expected-value of the cost on this probably about $50-100M, so the gov't is effectively spending about $1k per house.
  But if it works, it's spending $0.
  But if it doesn't work, it's spending that $20k/house for electricty those houses will never see.
3. Re:Price per Home by Rei · 2011-06-15 09:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I can't speak for solar, but with wind, O&M is generally less than a fifth of the construction cost. I'd expect solar to be even less.
  One nice thing about solar relates to grid stabilization. With wind, any turbine you add to the grid destabilizes it. At low penetration, the effect is quite small, easily dwarfed by demand instabilities, mind you, but it's still worth consideration. With solar however, at low penetrations, you're offsetting the increased demand that bright, sunny days impart to the grid. Low penetration of solar over a broad geographical area actually helps stabilize the grid, even without energy storage. Note the "geographical" component, mind you; having just one plant is vulnerable to the "a cloud just showed up" phenomenon (unless we get a smart grid, or at least a data exchange with power-hungry industries; barring that, you need integrated or standalone peaking -- although integrated peaking is pretty darned easy (see SEGS))
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
4. Re:Price per Home by NoKaOi · 2011-06-15 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  12 year pay-off ignoring operating expenses and maintenance.
  Sounds like a good investment.
  I think that's the point. That's why the government has to guarantee the loan. It's not a good investment in itself, but it is a good investment in the future of the technology, and overall in the acceptance of advancing new sources of power. Consider this a $2B investment in R&D where a good chunk will be recuperated in the power that it actually does generate. Oh yeah, and 12 years does happen (unless the doomsday folks are right), and I don't plan on being dead by then.
5. Re:Price per Home by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:13 · Score: 0
  
  I think what the PP meant by "ignoring operating expenses and maintenance".
  On the plus side, it doesn't eat oil, which is a plus that is hard to quantify.
6. Re:Price per Home by im_thatoneguy · 2011-06-15 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  errr.. 17 year pay-off. Not sure where I came up with 12.
7. Re:Price per Home by ShakaUVM · 2011-06-15 09:26 · Score: 2
  
  You think the average home pays $100 for power in California? Heh. Not if you live in the desert and run your AC at 50c/kWh.
  $20k/home could install small-scale solar on all of these houses, and without the inevitable lawsuits (the Sierra Club has successfully blocked two sites already, costing $$) and cost overruns. It also demonstrates that the supposed economy of scale benefit from large scale solar are also illusory.
8. Re:Price per Home by im_thatoneguy · 2011-06-15 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  $2B in loan guarantees is not $2B in cost. Unless the plant goes belly-up, which should be a low-probability event for something this simple. The expected-value of the cost on this probably about $50-100M, so the gov't is effectively spending about $1k per house.
  Right, I was just curious though what the actual cost of the project was that we were guaranteeing in the interest of seeing how competitive it was with coal.
9. Re:Price per Home by dachshund · 2011-06-15 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  It will be damn small scale. We just looked into solar PV for a similar (AC-hogging, pool) rental property in Florida. To cover the entire bill would require a $75k system.
  And it would still require us to purchase power from the grid at night. Yes, we could "sell" back to the grid during the day, but someone somewhere would still be burning fossile fuels for us at night. This plant generates power 24 hours a day.
10. Re:Price per Home by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-06-15 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, no way solar plants need that much maintenance and labour, two thirds of the cost of power sales? Worst case I'd say 24 years, which is what, a 4% ish return on investment? Not too bad, matches inflation anyway. A more likely case is 5 or 6%. Still not great, but quite acceptable for a utility.
11. Re:Price per Home by WolfWithoutAClause · 2011-06-15 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  5 year payoff is generally considered a good investment (It's an APR of 14% per annum)
  12 year payoff is usually considered a fairly bad investment (It's an APR of 5% per annum)
  And your money is at risk in both cases...
  
  --
  -WolfWithoutAClause
  "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
12. Re:Price per Home by shermo · 2011-06-15 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value/ too.
  $20k now is worth a lot more than $20k in a few years' time
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
13. Re:Price per Home by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:54 · Score: 0
  
  An absolutely poor investment by any measure. Your simple 12 year payback analysis is likely conservative, but even 12 years is ridiculous for the wholesale power and utility industries. Moreover, $2 billion for 500 MW is at least four times more expensive than a similar size natural gas combined cycle plant. That same gas fired plant would take less than 20 acres. The solar plant is about 5 MW per acre, or more than five time the land area. Assuming of course it will be built, and it doesn't get hung out to dry by environmental lawsuits protecting desert turtles. You see, I've been developing power plants for over 30 years, and I've seen everything, except a society willing to eat itself alive with pork barrel projects, deficit spending, and ridiculous notions that don't bear fruit or pay at least a modest rate of return.
  Good luck youngsters. You're gonna need it. Your leaders have hung you out to dry.
14. Re:Price per Home by swb · 2011-06-15 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  If they can return 6%, why aren't people lining up to build them instead of needing the dept. of Energy to guarantee $2 billion in loans?
  I'm all for alternative energy and believe in a Manhattan project for energy research, but there's a reason that big money capitalism isn't willing to invest that kind money -- there really isn't guaranteed money to be made there. If there was, they would invest.
  Needless to say, I think you're all wildly optimistic about the kind of margins this project yields. It may be hugely beneficial for science or engineering but not as a financial investment.
15. Re:Price per Home by blair1q · 2011-06-15 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  Coal kills an enormous number of people every year, between the miners, the environmental damage from the mining, the transport, the burning, and the environmental damage from the burning.
  There's no way to cost-compare it to anything. It's only cheap to those it don't kill.
16. Re:Price per Home by Ksevio · 2011-06-15 15:35 · Score: 1
  
  But what about a 12 year pay off with continuing returns after that in free power?
17. Re:Price per Home by ShakaUVM · 2011-06-15 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  >>It will be damn small scale. We just looked into solar PV for a similar (AC-hogging, pool) rental property in Florida. To cover the entire bill would require a $75k system.
  $75k sounds like an overprovisioned, non-grid tied system with battery backup, yes?
  $20k buys you a grid-tied system that will cover most of your power needs, with a coal/NG/nuclear backstop. Much more economical and practical.
  >>And it would still require us to purchase power from the grid at night. Yes, we could "sell" back to the grid during the day, but someone somewhere would still be burning fossile fuels for us at night.
  Every unit of energy you send into the grid is one less unit of energy that the backstop doesn't need to generate. So there's absolutely no rational reason to feel bad about building excess credits during the day and drawing them down at night.
  Plus, backstops don't need to be fossil fuels. 20% of the power generated nationwide (and in Florida) comes from nuclear.
18. Re:Price per Home by evilviper · 2011-06-15 20:11 · Score: 1
  
  With solar however, at low penetrations, you're offsetting the increased demand that bright, sunny days impart to the grid.
  That's only true in lower, hotter latitudes. Try that trick further north and you'll get lots of power when nobody is using it, and none when everyone is consuming massive amounts of electricity for heating.
  
  having just one plant is vulnerable to the "a cloud just showed up" phenomenon
  Nope. We're talking about a liquid sodium solar plant, here. It'll keep producing a large fraction of it's normal, steady power output levels for DAYS after the sun explodes.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
19. Re:Price per Home by evilviper · 2011-06-15 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  $20k/home could install small-scale solar on all of these houses
  Try that without the subsidies the state and federal governments are already providing. And while you could of course get PV panels for a home for $20k, it wouldn't provide for 100% of the power they need, so it's not a remotely fair comparison.
  And did I mention life-time? Operating costs on a solar thermal plant are infinitesimal, indefinitely. PV panels need to be thrown away and replaced after a few years.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
20. Re:Price per Home by ShakaUVM · 2011-06-15 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  >>Try that without the subsidies the state and federal governments are already providing.
  Wait, aren't we talking about a giant federal government loan guarantee? Ok, fine. It's about $2/watt to buy PV panels wholesale, before subsidies. So a 5.5kW system (what I have) would be about $11k, plus the inverter ($2k) plus installation and wiring. So call it $20k at cost.
  >>it wouldn't provide for 100% of the power they need, so it's not a remotely fair comparison
  My 5.5kW system is producing more power than I consume (about 30 kWh / day), though that'll change if I start running the AC 24/7. But I've got a fairly large store of credits built up.
  >>And did I mention life-time? Operating costs on a solar thermal plant are infinitesimal, indefinitely. PV panels need to be thrown away and replaced after a few years.
  You have it completely backwards.
  Solar thermal systems have pipes (that can leak) and high temperatures (that can cause wear), with operations and maintenance working out to about 1c/kWh.
  Solar PV has no moving parts, and the panels retain 80-90% efficiency across 20 years. (This is the guaranteed wear rate, in fact.) PV panels have no maintenance at all, unless you're getting leaves or mud blown on them.
21. Re:Price per Home by AmiMoJo · 2011-06-16 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Solar thermal doesn't suffer from overcast skies. Because energy is stored in molten salt (or whatever you want to use) a day or two of bad weather won't affect you in an area with reliable clear skies. For places not so lucky you just keep adding mirrors until there is enough heat generated even on the dimmest winter days.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:Price per Home by angel'o'sphere · 2011-06-16 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  I really wonder if I should once write a small article about how does the powergrid work into my journal and link it in relevant /. threads ...
  
  With wind, any turbine you add to the grid destabilizes it.
  What do you exactly mean with that? I never heared about something like this and can not really get to what you might refer, as
  
  Low penetration of solar over a broad geographical area actually helps stabilize the grid
  
  does not make much sense either.
  
  or at least a data exchange with power-hungry industries;
  
  That is actually how it is done. Every non private power consumer announces his power schedule to his power company. By aggregating all schedules up the power companies creates a grid schedule. All power companies together aggregate up a schedule for the grid they manage.
  So simply speaking: there is no sudden demand of power hungry industries. They have to appoint their power need minimum one day in advance. And if they dare to activate a few gigawats unscheduled it is really really really expensive for them.
  Regarding wind and sun power generation, the power companies try to make a schedule for their power production as well. That schedule is basically weather report driven. There are special weather report services for the energy companies. They predict sun and wind in local areas (where the plant is). So the power companies know a few hours in advance how much power they get from their Sun and Wind plants. That makes it possible to adjust the other plants in advance if the renewables produce more or less power than anticipated the day before. (The biggest thing that can go wrong is not that a industie suddenly draws imense power, but the opposite! Imagine an aluminium plant with a plant failure that does not draw the scheduled power)
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
23. Re:Price per Home by angel'o'sphere · 2011-06-16 01:19 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you live in the desert and run your AC at 50c/kWh.
  
  While I read this I really wonder what the old imperial metric for power is ;D After all the US seems very attached to theri miles and feet and yards ;D (Just kidding, ofc)
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
24. Re:Price per Home by zippthorne · 2011-06-16 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. The windmill my town just installed (another rant... some other time) would "pay for itself" in about four years time without debt service and maintenance*, on a device that's supposed last about 20 years before full replacement (blades, machinery, and tower, although the tower should last a little longer than the rest). Factoring in a reserve for planned replacement/upgrades, maintenance, and debt service, the pay-back timeline gets pushed out to 10-15 years.
  *At 2009 retail electric rates + subsidies....
  The point I'm trying to make is that 12 year pay-off before factoring in maintenance, debt service, operating expenses, upgrades, equipment overhauls, etc.. Doesn't sound like you're leaving much to work with buffer-wise.
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
25. Re:Price per Home by ShakaUVM · 2011-06-16 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  >>While I read this I really wonder what the old imperial metric for power is ;D After all the US seems very attached to theri miles and feet and yards ;D (Just kidding, ofc)
  Well, our power systems are all standardized on watts for instantaneous consumption, and kilowatt-hours instead of joules for energy.
  This replaced the imperial system in use up through 1995, which was library-of-congress-feet.
26. Re:Price per Home by im_thatoneguy · 2011-06-16 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  I assume the article uses an "average" US home. So I used the "average" US monthly electricity bill.
Government Boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 08:45 · Score: 0

What they don't tell you is that each of the concentrating power plants is focused on the other power plant.
Digging ditches and paying to fill them.
1. Re:Government Boondoggle by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  Did you set out to with the intent to post the most stupid comment you could on the subject, or was it just accidental?
Because it won't pay for itself. by chiangovitch · 2011-06-15 08:46 · Score: 1

Why does the government need to guarantee loans? Because it doesn't make enough sense for sane people to back. If it will pay for itself and give reasonable return while generating cost-competetive power, it doesn't need the governement guaranteeing it with your money. Unless they've already succeeded in their campaign to destroy the ability to raise free capital in this country.
1. Re:Because it won't pay for itself. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Loan guarantees are very common in long-term projects. Projects that WILL pay for themselves provided they can get financing at a predictable rates. No one will finance a 50-100-year bond at a reasonable rate, at least not anymore.
  So what power projects need loan guarantees to be viable?
  1. thermal solar
  2. hydroelectric
  3. wind
  4. nuclear
  5. coal [1]
  [1] - http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/DOE-announces-$8-billion-in-loan-guarantees-for-coal-indust_1374.html
  Why? Because lifetime of these projects is long and the cost of fuel they use is small in comparison to the capital costs.
  Which fuel source doesn't require these guarantees? Gas.
  Gas power stations are just gas turbines. These have reasonably small capital cost and most of the cost is the fuel.
  Of course you MUST NOT base your electricity load on gas or any single energy source or you'll end up with a scenario like what happened in late 1990s - running out of gas. And if entire electricity infrastructure is gas based, well, let's say it screws the entire economy.
  Anyway, without fossil fuels, the future energy mix is a mix of nuclear and renewables. And all of them need "load guarantees".
  
  Because it doesn't make enough sense for sane people to back. If it will pay for itself and give reasonable return while generating cost-competetive power, it doesn't need the governement guaranteeing it with your money.
  So one can make the same case against all long term technologies I've listed.
  I hate subsidies (eg. feed in tariffs subsidies for renewables - utter waste - for example Germany is paying $0.35/kWh in feed-in subsidies to produce their 10% renewables), but loan guarantees ain't it provided that the project can prove that it will be cost competitive.
2. Re:Because it won't pay for itself. by kaiser423 · 2011-06-15 09:28 · Score: 2
  
  The US government routinely provides loan guarantees for oil refineries, oil fields, wind plants, coal plants, natural gas pipelines, solar plants, etc, etc all of which are routinely profitable.
  
  Strangely, the government views a stable US power grid as something that is important to our society. Who'd have thunk?
3. Re:Because it won't pay for itself. by nico60513 · 2011-06-15 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Unless your goal is to improve the technology to the point where it does become cost-effective. These types of investments are common to governments all over the world -- and are not new to the United States. It is not a sign that we are living under a repressive socialist government (at least not a repressive socialist government that started in January of 2009),
  Now whether this project is a good investment or not ...
4. Re:Because it won't pay for itself. by couchslug · 2011-06-15 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Countries where business and government CO-OPERATE are kicking our ass.
  Principles are adorable, but business is war.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
This is idiotic by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 08:47 · Score: 0

Why not spend HALF the money instead on the MIT Geothermal plan and get 100 GW of energy?
1. Re:This is idiotic by Rei · 2011-06-15 08:56 · Score: 2
  
  Does your proposal come with a free unicorn?
  EGS is not that cheap, or anywhere close to it. And the tech is less mature than solar thermal. And I say this as a big EGS supporter (actually, I've moved more towards SWEGS, which is a particular variant of EGS).
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
2. Re:This is idiotic by interkin3tic · 2011-06-15 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  Does your proposal come with a free unicorn?
  pleasesayyespleasesayyespleasesayyes...
Why not more? by MoldySpore · 2011-06-15 08:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Really? Only $2Bil? When we are spending $708 Billion on defense? Why are we only putting up 0.0028% of the annual defense budget towards renewable, clean energy like this? Not sure how this makes sense. While it is nice to see a number in the Billions being put towards a project like this, I have a hard time taking the initiatives seriously when there are so many other bloated budgets we could chop down in size to put towards initiatives like this...

--
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
1. Re:Why not more? by hackertourist · 2011-06-15 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's $2B for these two projects. $30B total, but that includes all 'green technologies', incl. some nuclear power projects and several car projects.
2. Re:Why not more? by blair1q · 2011-06-15 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's less than that. A loan guarantee for $2B is not $2B in cash. Divide by 20-40, there. 0.00007-0.00014%.
  And why? Because the MIC has a much better lobby than the alternative-energy people do.
3. Re:Why not more? by Rei · 2011-06-15 09:09 · Score: 2
  
  Worse: These are loan guarantees, not grants. The military never pays back its budget with interest.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
4. Re:Why not more? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-06-15 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  It is probably best that you don't assume anything involving the annual defense budget of the U.S. makes sense. Correct that basic assumption about economic policy in this country and you will start to understand why political decisions get made the way they do.
  
  --
  Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
5. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  What makes you so sure that these "loans" will ever be paid off? If it's such a good idea why don't they finance it themselves, or through investment bankers? When GE decided gas turbine power generation was a good business to get into, that division apparently ran in the red for a number of years before it took off, but that was okay with them because they believed in the technology. Of course, that was then and this is now and they'll belly up to the government trough with all the rest of pigs.
6. Re:Why not more? by Rei · 2011-06-15 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  You really think funds with a spare $2B lying around can be found at every streetcorner? Especially this day in age?
  Once you get to that scale, market capital generally prefers to only be put into guaranteed returns on established hardware. There's virtually no capital available for even moderate risk/reward scenarios in the multi-billion dollar scale.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
7. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  2/708 = 0.0028 = 0.28%
8. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  $2 Bil of $708 Bil is about 0.28%, not about 0.0028%.
  I hope the 100-fold increase of expenditure compared to your expectations can meet with your approval.
9. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Says the guy with the freedom to post on Slashdot.
  Military spending looks like a waste until someone wants to take your stuff and you don't have the strength to prevent them. Sadly the human species is a naturally violent one, and until that gets fixed, spending money on an 'overpriced' military will remain like car insurance. We hope we don't get to use it, but its there if we need it.
  Queue people angry about our involvement in overseas conflicts in 3...2...1...
10. Re:Why not more? by TheSync · 2011-06-15 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Only $2Bil? When we are spending $708 Billion on defense?
  Did you vote for a candidate of a party whose platform says "The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world"?
11. Re:Why not more? by element-o.p. · 2011-06-15 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Queue people angry about our involvement in overseas conflicts in 3...2...1...
  Well, yeah. Just because I want insurance to keep someone else from marching over to take my stuff doesn't mean I want my "insurance company" marching around taking other peoples' stuff. You'll get people making those comments because it's a valid point.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
12. Re:Why not more? by belthize · 2011-06-15 12:19 · Score: 2
  
  Says the guy with the freedom to post as AC.
  I feel fairly confident that if we hadn't doubled the military budget in the past decade we could probably still post on /.
  If you think the only thing between the US and "loss of American way of life as we know it"(TM) is 300B why the hell aren't we spending 2T. Seems kind of risky to live that close to the edge.
  Apologies to all you non-US folks with no military, it's sad you can no longer post on /., we'll keep the light on until the hordes finally over run us.
13. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  That's 0.28%. Not 0.0028%. Couple orders of magnitude never hurt anyone, right?
14. Re:Why not more? by MoldySpore · 2011-06-15 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  ...Military spending looks like a waste until someone wants to take your stuff and you don't have the strength to prevent them...
  Really? How can you argue FOR the huge defense budget? We have somewhere in the vicinity of 5000 nuclear warheads deployed or in stockpile (They plan to decommission enough by 2012 to return to "1957 numbers" of warheads, but everyone forgets how much more powerful they are today than they were in 1957). We could trigger a worldwide nuclear winter ourselves 50 times over without any other country firing a single shot. We still have 174,000 troops deployed world wide, with 60,000+ in Germany, 50,000+ in Japan, and 30,000+ in South Korea. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, because those wars ended long ago. The list goes on and on and on. How is that smart spending in a time of economic hardship? The tanks and missiles and ships aren't going anywhere. I guarantee calling back all troops deployed worldwide not currently engaged in Afghanistan would net a huge amount of $ that could be spent in a MUCH better place, especially now with the economy in the shitter. And that is just ONE example.
  
  --
  "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
15. Re:Why not more? by MoldySpore · 2011-06-15 14:02 · Score: 1
  
  Haha you caught me. Forgot to multiply by 100! That said, it is still an abysmally low % when compared to how much we spend on defense and in other areas.
  
  --
  "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
16. Re:Why not more? by elashish14 · 2011-06-15 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  It's ridiculous how much they spend on defense.
  So many world problems would be solved if the US would demilitarize.
  
  --
  I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
17. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:18 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps this was the amount the arrived at after consulting a focus group.
18. Re:Why not more? by Eclipse-now · 2011-06-15 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed! Not only is it $708 on defence, but America spends $600 billion a year buying overseas oil. Imagine if Washington mandated a shift to electric cars, fast rail, New Urbanism and above all, GenIV nukes that eat waste and could run America for 1000 years off the nuclear waste you have already collected! GenIV nukes can be load-following, run all day all night all weather all YEAR with no seasonal variation (unless required), and could basically free America from parting with $600 big ones every year. I don't get you guys. You spend $600 billion buying overseas oil, then end up invading Iraq to set up a big police station in the Middle East. Iraq + Annual overseas oil bill = America OFF OIL FOREVER and paying home-grown nuclear & renewable jobs for your OWN energy independence!
19. Re:Why not more? by evilviper · 2011-06-15 19:30 · Score: 1
  
  Show that any of the defense budget is wasted, and it can be cut right away. If you can't point out waste, then you're saying we should make some serious trade-offs. SO what are you going to cut? Fewer armored humvees? Less body armor. It's not being thrown in a hole in the ground, it's doing something. Just because it's a big number doesn't mean cutting BILLIONS from it won't be missed. It also doesn't mean there's a lot of waste in there. That's very ignorant and childish thinking.
  If you want to debate what should and should not be part of defense spending, fine. But acknowledge that you're making trade-offs, and sit back and wait for the flood of people that disagree with you about what is necessary to come rolling in.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
20. Re:Why not more? by evilviper · 2011-06-15 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  Really? How can you argue FOR the huge defense budget?
  You can't possibly argue for anything so abstract. Break it down into it's constituent parts, though, and the utility of each is clear.
  
  We have somewhere in the vicinity of 5000 nuclear warheads deployed or in stockpile
  And what? Push a magic button and they turn into money? Decommissioning them is quite expensive,and as you've said, we've been systematically lowering the numbers in the stockpile for decades.
  
  We still have 174,000 troops deployed world wide, with 60,000+ in Germany, 50,000+ in Japan, and 30,000+ in South Korea. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, because those wars ended long ago.
  The Korean War never ended. Soldiers along the DMZ are routinely shot and killed. With North Korea's dire economic situation, it's practically undisputed that the US' military commitment to South Korea is the only thing stopping invasion from the heavily militarized North... That's as current as it gets.
  Many of the troops in Germany are supporting the active wars in the middle east. Basically everyone who gets seriously injured in Iraq or Afghanistan is evac'd to US military medical facilities in Germany. What's more, if the US is going to continue to be the police force to the world, large bases outside of the US are simply needed. They happen to be often located in countries we've been at war with, but it's not always the case, and simply works out that way. If we didn't have foreign bases standing, how long do you think it would have taken the US to coordinate their initial attacks on Libya? Sure, a few jets could do the mid-air refueling thing and fly around the planet, but it would become untenable quickly. And we wouldn't just suddenly be converting a parking lot into a military base over night.
  
  How is that smart spending in a time of economic hardship?
  Failing to spend a small amount of money to maintain something that has been highly valuable in the past, is not "smart spending". It's short-sighted idiocy. Think of it like not paying your flood insurance bill on your beach house, when times are tough. Penny-wise, pound foolish.
  
  The tanks and missiles and ships aren't going anywhere.
  Umm, actually, they are. Failing to do the maintenance on that equipment will quickly render it unreliable, dangerous, and militarily useless.
  
  I guarantee calling back all troops deployed worldwide not currently engaged in Afghanistan would net a huge amount of $ that could be spent in a MUCH better place,
  Well you'd immediately break the supply chain for Afghanistan, so that would require a huge amount more money spent to replace it. And casualties would vastly increase as well.
  Let's not forget that South Korea is dead as soon as the US' commitment to them shows any signs of wavering, which, while that would save us some money momentarily, would quickly drive the world into depression, as one of the biggest economies in the world is militarily overwhelmed, all of Asia is severely affected, investors panic, and stock markets around the world crash and burn, with no sign of improvement for many years.
  And besides all this, what's the point? Sure, we'd have a bit less debt, but spending it on other stimulus programs isn't going to improve the economy notably. Every respectable economist out there says we need private sector job growth, not more government stimulus, for a lasting recovery. Stimulus helps, but it's not a solution to the problem.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
21. Re:Why not more? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Only $2Bil? When we are spending $708 Billion on defense? Why are we only putting up 0.0028% of the annual defense budget towards renewable
  I think you meant 2.8%.
22. Re:Why not more? by MachineShedFred · 2011-06-16 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  but everyone forgets how much more powerful they are today than they were in 1957
  Actually, they're not more powerful. In 1957 they were all about the big massive multi-megaton bombs because they hadn't thought about the inverse-cube law of expanding spheres, or the idea of MIRVs. The old massive 10Mt Castle-Bravo type weapons would vaporize the entire city and half the countryside around it, but is so freakin big you can't get it onto anything smaller than an old Titan-II; and require massive amounts of maintenance just to keep in active service.
  Now we use more sophisticated, smaller weapons which can "dial-a-yield" from a Hiroshima-sized 20Kt explosion, to a 475Kt weapon which would take out a good chunk of a city. Oh, and we can put multiple on a single booster, just to make sure we can deliver more destruction than a multi-megaton weapon could (again, inverse-cube law), with less cost and less waste of nuclear material in the form of fallout from unreacted tamper. They also require much less maintenance - no messy cryogenics or dewar flasks to deal with.
  Accuracy matters too. The missile crews at Vandenberg AFB practice hitting 55-gallon drum sized targets at atolls in the south Pacific from just north of Los Angeles. Not only do we want to be able to flatten a chunk of a city with a push of a button and the turning of a couple keys, we want to be able to put that device through your bedroom window before it goes off.
  See:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_36_nuclear_bomb (1950s era bomb, 10Mt yield)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W87 (warhead designed for Peacekeeper/MX designed in the 80s, retrofitted to the Minuteman-III; 450Kt yield estimated)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88 (current Trident-II warhead designed in the 70s; miniaturized for SLBMs. 475Kt yield estimated)
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
23. Re:Why not more? by MachineShedFred · 2011-06-16 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and the war in Korea didn't end long ago - technically we're still at war with them, with an armistice in place. There hasn't ever been a peace treaty. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Armistice_.28July_1953_.E2.80.93_November_1954.29
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
24. Re:Why not more? by ImprovOmega · 2011-06-16 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  Remember to multiply by 100 when converting to % - 2/708 = 0.002857 or 0.2857%
  
  Still low, but orders of magnitude matter.
25. Re:Why not more? by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Military spending looks like a waste until someone wants to take your stuff and you don't have the strength to prevent them.
  
  Sadly, those with this argument then always reverse it when talking about funding. What do the lower class and lower middle class care if we are invaded? It's not like it will change their lives much, and their level of ownership of property and such is low. But the rich have much to lose if Canada invades and nationalizes Microsoft. So we should be taxing the rich much much more because the military almost exclusively serves their interests, and the military is one of the largest expenses of the USA.
  
  But every time I hear someone make the argument you made, they then turn around and want the funding for what they just argued protects the rich more than the poor to be spread more evenly across the population.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
26. Re:Why not more? by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then we should pull out of South Korea today. If the North invades, then the US, China, Australia, Japan (though banned from having a military, actually has one), and probably a pile of others will lay waste to North Korea and be done with it. Even if the US didn't get involved, if we pulled out and North Korea invaded, the rest of the world would step in and wipe North Korea off the face of the planet. The only possible issue would be whether it would be controlled by South Korea or China at the end of that war.
  
  So yes, lets get out of there ASAP and let North Korea try to invade. That will be the best thing for the stability of the region, and certainly better than a large permanent US force (cheaper is just a bonus).
  
  And you assume that we should be able to project our military might globally. When you start with such assumptions, your conclusions are required. However, when you don't start with those assumptions, you find that we can greatly reduce our military.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
27. Re:Why not more? by Thing+1 · 2011-06-16 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  How about "remove troops from line of fire"; "don't start land wars in Afghanistan"; and other choice wisdom from ages past.
  
  --
  I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
28. Re:Why not more? by evilviper · 2011-06-16 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  If the North invades, then the US, China, Australia, Japan (though banned from having a military, actually has one), and probably a pile of others will lay waste to North Korea and be done with it.
  Last I checked, North Korea has the #4 military in the world. China is the only one on your list that could take them on. Austrailia isn't a nuclear power, and Japan trains their army not to shoot people, and not to shoot to kill even if being attacked, even in a war zone like Afghanistan.
  And China would be more likely to encourage an invasion than stop it. They're the PROK's only major trading partner and ally. It would be a cheap way for China to get anything they want out of the south.
  
  And you assume that we should be able to project our military might globally. When you start with such assumptions, your conclusions are required. However, when you don't start with those assumptions, you find that we can greatly reduce our military.
  I start with the OBSERVATION that the US' projection of military power across the world since WWII has had tremendous positive effect in economic, political, and humanitarian. I continue on with the observation that all other western nations have shown themselves completely unwilling to commit to such efforts, no matter what, unless the US is doing the overwhelming bulk of the fighting.
  Saying we can save money by eliminating our military is a lot like saying someone should sell their (only) car to avoid paying the car insurance bill... you'll find not having it soon costs you so much more than the cost of maintaining it would have.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
29. Re:Why not more? by AK+Marc · 2011-06-16 15:06 · Score: 1
  
  And China would be more likely to encourage an invasion than stop it. They're the PROK's only major trading partner and ally.
  That's because China is interested in money, not the politics there. China would have as much of an issue with attacking North Korea as we would have attacking Mexico if Mexico began invading all the Caribbean islands. We sure trade with them a lot, but we don't associate with them and think ourselves better than that 3rd world country that borders us.
  
  I start with the OBSERVATION that the US' projection of military power across the world since WWII has had tremendous positive effect in economic, political, and humanitarian.
  That's only relevant if you assert that it wouldn't have happened without the US and that "positive effect" was a net positive effect that wouldn't have occurred if the US hadn't done it. Furthermore, the cost to the US was great, so how much better would the US be if we hadn't spent all that money internationally?
  
  Saying we can save money by eliminating our military is a lot like saying someone should sell their (only) car to avoid paying the car insurance bill... you'll find not having it soon costs you so much more than the cost of maintaining it would have.
  It's a lot like saying you can cancel cable to save money, then you find yourself watching less TV, so you not only have more time, but more money as well.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
30. Re:Why not more? by evilviper · 2011-06-17 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  China would have as much of an issue with attacking North Korea as we would have attacking Mexico if Mexico began invading all the Caribbean islands.
  Even if China doesn't give a damn about North Korea, war with a major military is very expensive, and difficult to get support for. So yes, there is always "much of an issue" when starting a war.
  
  That's only relevant if you assert that it wouldn't have happened without the US
  I don't assert it. I direct your attention to all the times other western nations have had the opportunity to do similar, often on a tiny scale, and utterly fail to do so. That basically nobody else (China is a notable exception) has the determination to do so is a provable fact. Your implication that some nebulous alternative would spring up is the baseless assertion here. I'll look at any evidence you can provide to indicate that, TODAY, the US pulling out of all of it's military obligations would suddenly cause other world powers to grow a spine they so obviously don't have now. And I'm making it easy on you, completely ignoring the question of military competency...
  
  It's a lot like saying you can cancel cable to save money
  No, your analogy is massively flawed. The military is tangible, and we've made lots of big and long-term investments in it, towards a goal. We've also established that the military is something that provides real benefits... economic, political, and humanitarian. It's definitely not some trivial entertainment service.
  You actually can loosely compare the US military to cable if you insist, but in this case, WE ARE the cable company... We've got the infrastructure, currently providing service, and returning benefits to us. And yes, we could make some money by pawning off big chunks of that infrastructure, and the employees that make the service possible. But taking that route involves throwing away what we built, and while you'll certainly get short-term cash bonus, you're also going to be paying far more when you've got the money again, and decide you need to rebuild it...
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I like the irony by Colin+Smith · 2011-06-15 09:06 · Score: 2

Solar thermal concentrating power stations to provide electricity to run air conditioning.

--
Deleted
1. Re:I like the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  Solar thermal with heat storage provides baseline. Solar electric provides peek power for air conditioning.
  Also the advantage of a loan guarantee is the recipient can then borrow at much lower rates, which improves the economics of the deal.
2. Re:I like the irony by Rei · 2011-06-15 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, you can run cooling systems directly off heat.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
3. Re:I like the irony by yarnosh · 2011-06-15 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Not ironic at all. It is just smart.
4. Re:I like the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think "irony" means what you think it means.
  This is probably the best solution to air conditioning humanly possible.
5. Re:I like the irony by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  Irony? It's a self-balancing system. You get the most energy exactly when you need it most. Compare it with powering AC with wind energy - sometimes you have too much wind, sometimes too much sun. Annoying for your base load plants. (Who BTW operate worse in hot weather, as they're all thermal in the end)
Yes and No at the same time.... by Fallen+Kell · 2011-06-15 09:36 · Score: 1

Yes as having power generated at the site of usage removes the transmission loss from the equation thus improving overall energy usage efficiency.

No because most all solar power used at residences are silicone panel collectors, which use a lot more raw materials for the energy output they produce compared to concentrating arrays (which use lots of space with mirrors which are much cheaper to produce (both in costs and energy/waste usage) than panels for the same energy output, but require more physical space.

So like everything there are pros and cons. Since most people don't own enough space where motorized mirrors can be placed, you don't see many concentrating solor power installed at residences.

--
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
1. Re:Yes and No at the same time.... by Rei · 2011-06-15 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  Our grid averages 92.8% transmission efficiency. That's not a lot of loss.
  
  --
  Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
Nuclear by jonathansdt · 2011-06-15 10:14 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Can't we just build nuclear plants? They're awesome. They'll provide cheap power for our kids and grandkids to enjoy.
1. Re:Nuclear by Your.Master · 2011-06-15 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  We should build both. Solar has strong advantages in peak-load power supply. Nuclear has strong advantages in baseload. Both have geographically-linked disadvantages (avoid building Nuclear sites near volcanos, don't build solar plants underneath the canopy of the rainforest...you can come up with less extreme examples for each).
  Just because Nuclear is a good idea doesn't mean that every other energy source is a bad idea.
  Also, they tend to have a useful life in the range of decades, so your grandchildren might not get to really enjoy them anyway (depending on your age, whether you already have a child, and the length of a generation in your family). Not that solar plants have an infinite lifespan either, just sayin' it's not like the sun's going to disappear either (the Matrix notwithstanding).
2. Re:Nuclear by angel'o'sphere · 2011-06-16 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  We should build both. Solar has strong advantages in peak-load power supply. Nuclear has strong advantages in baseload.
  Thats a myth. Solar Thermal plants are very good for base load operation. Photovoltaic plants to a lesser degree ofc.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
While it may not by publiclurker · 2011-06-15 11:16 · Score: 1

result in killing funny lookin furiners in order to seize their resources, or create a darker black for velvet Elvis artwork, scientific knowledge tends to have a way of finding uses. Reality is not just limited to the whining of a few loud individuals who don't want to grow up and actually pay for the tab they've rung up.
1. Re:While it may not by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  Switch sides. You are emphatically arguing for the execution of every single member of NASA and anyone who approves of it.
and for the great grandkids by publiclurker · 2011-06-15 11:26 · Score: 0

all the radioactive fallout you want.
No by Shivetya · 2011-06-15 13:01 · Score: 1

First is the same reason why solar plants are such a pain to situate, they take far more area per MW than any fossil/nuclear plant. Already there are people suing to stop some of these new solar plants over their affect on a rare turtle that lives in one part of the desert. Plus panels need maintenance, this includes cleaning. Do we want a neighborhood of idiots trying to clean panels (where do they get the water for that I wonder) let alone the fact many would never do it meaning the ROI would be horrible. Then comes another kicker, all the power coming randomly into the grid which would make it murder for power companies to manage. Lets toss out one more, all that gasoline to power the service vehicles traveling from house to house to do check ups. Suddenly that green power ain't so green. We could make a bigger case against wind power this way as well.
Its all fun and games, the number one profiteer of wind energy is GE and we know who they are friends with, so who are the people really behind these new solar installations and which politicians do they own?

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
That's all? by ALeader71 · 2011-06-15 13:25 · Score: 2

$2B for a measely 500kwh? Pathetic! Solar just won't cut it. It's a technology for sunny states, but not so much for the rest of the nation. Shame GreenPeace isn't allowing cold states to develop alternate energy solutions that work in states with weather.

--
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
inst this tech space consuming though? by hesaigo999ca · 2011-06-16 00:39 · Score: 1

How much space will this take, vs. windturbines or other such techs.....i mean the problem is these arrays are all radar shaped, no?
so the biggest is going to take a big chunk of land with almost no real capacity for upward development, where as an empty but full blown 120 story skyscraper in the middle of the desert, with all that solar panel paint they have been talking about might be able to generate alot more energy for alot less space horizontally, as well, you can also make many skyscrapers side by side....being they will be empty also might make it less costly to built.
Power Generation by Joseph Hiddink by SpacerOne · 2011-06-16 08:22 · Score: 1

For that amount of money we can generate all the Power that the US can use. Gravity Control can be used to generate power for 1 cent per Kilowatt or less.. It is based on the technology, used by the Flying Saucer, which I discovered and patented. It was offered to Nasa, so that the Shuttles would be independent of rocket power and would be able to reach the ISS in one hour, the Moon in a Couple of Hhours and even Mars within on day, It was rejected. It would make the Heavy Lifter obsolete So now I can offer it for power generation. These big spheres under a Saucer are the Propulsion Units (PU) They can lift a 10 or 100 ton vehicle off the ground using a small amount of energy with the technology. A PU can also lift a weight in a Silo to maximum height. When it is released, it can activate the generator(s). A Power Station would consist of two Silos, working alternating. It can be built in Micro-, Mega- or Gigawatt size. No pollution. No fuel needed after start-up. It can even be buried up to ground level or be used by ships. The PUs would be LEASED to give investors and Taxman their due.