Largest US Power Storing Solar Array Goes Live

Lucas123 writes "A solar power array that covers three square miles with 3,200 mirrored parabolic collectors went live this week, creating enough energy to power 70,000 homes in Arizona. The Solana Solar Power Plant, located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, was built at a cost of $2 billion, and financed in large part by a U.S. Department of Energy loan guarantee. The array is the world's largest parabolic trough plant, meaning it uses parabolic shaped mirrors mounted on moving structures that track the sun and concentrate its heat. A first: a thermal energy storage system at the plant can provide electricity for six hours without the concurrent use of the solar field. Because it can store electricity, the plant can continue to provide power during the night and inclement weather."

Comments

pricing

[Moblaster]

So I'm not going to respond to the first post because it makes no sense. But I'll happily use the "first reply" spot, thank you very much, to actually say something. This $2 billion plant breaks down to close to $30,000 per home serviced. Seems a wee bit excessive, considering the average home electric bill in Arizona runs something like $200 (I researched the web for a few minutes to estimate this). Consider that installing a home solar system would run something like $10-$20k at most in a sunny place like Arizona (considerably less w various tax incentives). Looking like a bit of a boondoggle?

Re:pricing

[edjs]

This plant cost $7100/kW. For comparison, the US Energy Information Administration estimates a new nuke plant would cost about $5300/kW (and in China, where they actually building many nukes, they're $2000/kW).

Presumably if more of these solar plants were built the cost would come down.

Re:pricing

[dbIII]

Since it's a lot like a coal fired power station without all that corrosive and abrasive coal I expect it will last many decades (just like the coal fired power stations). Steam is fairly well understood even at the low pressure/large turbine end where this is going to be.
To put things in perspective with the 30MW plant, you can get 20MW generator sets built in the 1960s that use a single jet engine to drive them. Of course they go through fuel like anything and have serious running costs so I'm only making the comparison in terms of size - even 1970s solar PV would be cheaper over time than those things.

Re:Three square miles of pristine desert? Bad huma

[matthewd]

I did the calculations and it is around 1200 square feet per household that this project is powering. I'm not sure this type of land use could really scale.

Re:Thats a shitload of money

[ShanghaiBill]

Is there any solar power that is not a blight on the land?

Where I live, in San Jose, California, they install solar-PV panels over parking lots. They look nice, generate power, and provide shade for the parked cars.

Re:WTF

[FishTankX]

More storage capacity beyond peak hours probably isn't profitable. You want to sell electricity during peak because that's when you're getting the highest dollar value for your power. They probably designed the salt storage, so the total output of the plant was extended long enough to generate during those peak evening hours, and no longer, so baseload power takes over. The smaller your storage is, the less power you would put into storage and the more power you put into spinning your turbine.

That's a Lot of Area to go pure solar!

[neorush]

In 2010 there were 114,800,000 U.S. households, 114,800,000 / 70,000 powered homes = 1,640 of these facilities at 3 square miles per facility = 4,900 square miles! Airizona is 114,006 square miles, that is 4.2% of the state covered in panels....or roughly the entire state of Connecticut if you have some room for growth.

Re:That's a Lot of Area to go pure solar!

[Reziac]

That's why solar arrays should go on the roofs of existing urban buildings -- the ground is already in use (no new ground need be destroyed**) and the power is produced where it's to be used (rather than requiring new transmission lines).

** If you haven't actually seen a desert solar facility -- they produce a scorched-earth effect locally and a heat/dust shadow for several miles downwind. They're extremely destructive of the desert ecology and environment, which is not nearly so lifeless as most 'greenies' and city slickers believe. Would they be so cavalier about it if, say, solar facilities were built in forest or wetlands? Putting 'em in the desert, which has a far harder time recovering from abuse, is elitist NIMBYism.