Slashdot Mirror


Google-Backed Solar Plant Catches on Fire (pv-tech.org)

An anonymous reader writes:"The world's largest solar plant just torched itself," read the headline at Gizmodo, reporting on a fire Thursday at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System. Built on 4,000 acres of public land in the Mojave Desert, the $2.2 billion plant "has nearly 350,000 computer controlled mirrors -- each roughly the size of a garage door," according to the Associated Press, which reports that misaligned mirrors focused the sunlight on electrical cables, causing them to burst into flames, according to the local fire department. The facility was temporarily shut down, and the fire damaged one of the facility's three towers, according to the Associated Press, while another tower is closed for maintenance, "leaving the sprawling facility on the California-Nevada border operating at only a third of its capacity."
The New York Times reported that by 2011 Google had invested $168 in the facility.

16 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. If they need some money... by SkunkPussy · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I'll throw another $168 their way.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:If they need some money... by mi · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...I'll throw another $168 their way.

      You may wish to rethink your offer — you and I have already sunk much more into this failed enterprise. The submitter's write-up and TFA both concentrate on Google's puny $168 (million), for which Google would've gotten a solid return, had the project worked, while strangely omitting the $1,600 million, which Obama's DOE gave them in loan-guarantees without any hope of earning a profit.

      Think of what useful things could've been funded with the money, had it been done the fair — Capitalist — way. You know, when the people making investments a) dispense their own monies, rather than those of captive taxpayers; b) face personal losses from failures and rewards from successes...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:If they need some money... by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Government is uniquely positioned to take longer term bets that the corporate world will not take. They can take the longer term view as the US will still be around in decades, while the average corporation will look at things quarter by quarter, and where the max horizon is 3 years out.

      And yes, by taking a longer term view they will quite regularly waste money. But, if you think R&D is expensive, try ignorance. We now know much better how to (not) run a solar plant. Live and Learn. Directly harvesting solar energy is a long-term inevitability, and arguing that the big bad gubmint has no reason to involve itself in the development of the capability is quite short-sighted.

    3. Re:If they need some money... by dywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      I keep forgetitng, you're not from here, so you've missed out on many of the biggest projects the fed has accomplished, because rather than learn history, you've latched on to some comckamamey ideology that you've confused with libertarianism. too much rand, not enough reality.

      3 billion?
      thats cute.

      the WPA and CCC building the nation's first national highways, parks, dams, and other infrastructure.
      the interstate system.
      the water distribution and irrigation system of california
      the entire space program
      as well as most of the advances in aeronautics from the 1920 through the 1990s
      medical breakthroughs at universities funded by federal grants...or did you forget that fully 90% of all research money spent in this country comes from the fed?
      computers, robotics and ai?

      seriously solyndra?
      actually son the typical venture capitalist firm does just fine with a solyndra or two. after all, the typical investment success rate to be a successful firm is only ~33%. 2 out of 3 projects can fail, and they still regain enough to cover losses and make a profit.

      as for the DOE bureaucrats you disdain so much...so far their loan program is rocking a 97% success rate. so point to solyndra all you want, cause the DOE is outperforming the typical market by over 300%. lose their jobs? hah. the private investors wish they could be that successful with their money.

      proving once again that you dont have a single fucking clue what you're talking about.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  2. FIX THE FUCKING URL, SLASHDOT EDITORS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    HOLY FUCK!

    The "invested $168 in the facility" link's URL is fucked up.

    It is currently:

    https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/16/05/21/236254/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/google-pulls-the-plug-on-a-renewable-energy-effort

    When it should obviously be:

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/google-pulls-the-plug-on-a-renewable-energy-effort

    And it's not "$168", for crying out loud. The article clearly states (emphasis added),

    Google still has invested $168 million in the venture

    I don't expect a lot from the editors here, but holy fucking moley, this is just inexcusably bad! Fix the goddamn link URL! Fix the goddamn amount of money!

    1. Re:FIX THE FUCKING URL, SLASHDOT EDITORS! by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come back timothy, all is forgiven!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  3. Re:This shows how safe solar is. by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we regulated it as heavily as nuclear it would be a 6 month shutdown and line by line review of the code.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  4. It's all done with smoke and mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's all done with smoke and mirrors.

  5. Re: This shows how safe solar is. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Would you prefer, "Solar Energy Has its First Chernobyl"?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Why mention Google? by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google is a minority investor in the project. Why not mention the main investor????

    From Ivanpah Solar Power Facility NRG has invested $300 million, Google $168 million and the US government has provided a $1.6 Billion load guarantee.

    In fact why mention the investors at all? Did they have something to do with the day to day running? Did someone from Google sneak out one night and mis-align the mirrors?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Why mention Google? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The investors are irrelevant, the government support is something worth mentioning, as this is a plant that is woefully underperfoming to start with, has not fulfilled its contractual obligations for power delivery after it was operational, and is at risk of being shut down if the power contract is cancelled. This is just another setback that is going to make it that much harder for the plant to continue.

  7. Typical clueless journos by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Having a fire break out in a concentrator tower is not the plant 'torching itself'. To get a usable Carnot temperature differential.for power generation, the temperature on the heated end of the tower has to be high, so that's where the excessive temperature risk is concentrated. But when journalism is being practiced by scribes who nothing about science, every error condition has to treated as an apocalypse. Welcome to our world, solar developers.

  8. Oh my gosh, something got hot and melted! by RobinH · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work in a factory and stuff is occasionally installed wrong or fails in such a way that stuff breaks, sometimes by melting or having smoke come out of it. Nobody was injured and the result of the problem didn't cascade and create other problems (at least nothing serious apparently) which means it's not a huge deal. Replace the cables, align the mirrors properly this time, update the process for mirror alignment and verification and get on with life.

    I seriously wonder what kind of sheltered life people must be living to not have experienced stuff breaking down and having to repair it. Have you not owned a car? A washing machine or dishwasher? A computer with a hard drive? I've twice been in the vicinity of electrical transformers that exploded rather spectacularly, both of which due to high winds. They're up on a pole so nobody got hurt. They were fixed within a matter of hours. Seriously, stuff breaks down, usually for quite run-of-the-mill reasons, often due to human error, and it has to be fixed. Why the shock and mock outrage?

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  9. A very suspicious fire at a failed enterprise by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For centuries unscrupulous businessmen and employees have used the cover of a "devastating fire" for to cover up failures of owners/managers and to mask theft by the employees.

    The Ivanpah solar plant was backed not just by Google's ($168 million), but by Obama's Department of Energy ($1600 million — strangely omitted from the write-up) as well. And it proved to be a major failure long ago. Just two months ago it was reported on the very edge of closing down for not producing enough energy:

    The plant only generated 45 percent of expected power in 2014 and only 68 percent in 2015, according to government data.

    And what it did produce, cost $200 per megawatt hour — nearly six times the cost of electricity from natural gas-fired power plants. Worse! It actually used the evil natural gas to supplement the solar-cells' output... (Remember this the next time someone tells you, how we could "power the planet" with only a fraction of the land covered by solar cells — if only the evil oil/nuclear/whatever weren't sabotaging the efforts.)

    This fire may really have been an accident. But a suspicion, that it was deliberate is certainly no less credible, than the FUD-spreading accusation, some German nuclear plant deliberately released nuclear waste in the air 30 years ago.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  10. Re:This shows how safe solar is. by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) This is a non-event, about on par with the non-events in nuclear power that mdsolar regularly submits (which for some baffling reason gets approved). The reflected sunlight set a few wire bundles on fire, and the fire damaged some piping. That's it. Ars Technica has about the only non-dramatized coverage of it I've read. I suppose you could view the hype as counterbalancing mdsolar's anti-nuclear hype, but I'd just rather not have hype of any kind on /.

    2) The danger of solar comes mostly during installation and maintenance. Working on the roof (where most PV panels are installed) is the most dangerous construction job out there. And the always-generating nature of PV panels makes them an electrocution hazard. Not really an issue here since Ivanpah is a solar thermal plant.

    3) After fuels that you burn and Banqiao, solar is the most dangerous energy source once you normalize for amount of electricity generated. About 10x deadlier than nuclear power,

  11. FUD - and pure factual misrepresentation by taharvey · · Score: 4, Informative

    You sir don't know how to calculate basic math.

    The plant cost $2.2B and has a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, therefore the build capacity cost were $5.6/W. The DOE EIA shows coal averages $4.4/W but can be as high as $6.6/W for cleaner plants, and nuclear built costs at a similar $5.5/W. So it was built for a very conventional cost.

    But that is just build cost. Then comes the fixed and variable O & M costs for which solar is very low. Half of coal, and a third of nuclear. And that is with coat and nuclear getting all sorts of governmental freebees on the external costs of environmental, health & security impact.

    We describe the combination of capital and O&M as LCOE (levelized cost of energy). For which the plant it is a quoted at a LCOE of $0.146/kWh. NOT $200/kWh. Which is competitive which a number of conventional fuel sources like natural gas (wikipedia). PV still ranks cheaper, but there have been few bigger thermal projects to drive down these costs. You might notice that the DOE only quotes the LCOE of theoretical nuclear projects to be delivered in 10 years or fully capitalized 40 year old plants, because the last nuclear plants to be built in the USA had terrifyingly bad economics, and even then don't include their obvious myriad of externalities.

    And this is (partially) why in the free market, wind, solar, and decentralized gas-turnbines are killing it. In the last 10 years solar+wind have been leading new capacity installation world wide. by the end of this year solar will have reached 321GW of worldwide capacity, Wind 517GW... most of which was installed in the last 10 years period. Whereas worldwide nuclear capacity declined from 375GW to 372GW in the same period.