179 megawatts of solar power just switched on in Nevada

[Daelak]

I don't believe the no maintenance comment for a second. I understand the weather of desert climates quite well since I live in one. Sandstorms are quite common and will seriously degrade efficiency by coating the panels with dirt, grit, and even plant life.

They did a feasibility study with long range weather forecasts that include the propensity in that area for dust storms. This area is more akin to the Atacama Desert, where even the chance of dust storms is low, and cleaning maintenance is literally once a decade if not less.

[Osmeric]

They did a feasibility study with long range weather forecasts that include the propensity in that area for dust storms. This area is more akin to the Atacama Desert, where even the chance of dust storms is low, and cleaning maintenance is literally once a decade if not less.

The Atacama Desert is a wonderful place for solar. High altitude, moderate temperature (PV works better when cool), very very dry, near the equator.

[Daelak]

The Atacama Desert is a wonderful place for solar. High altitude, moderate temperature (PV works better when cool), very very dry, near the equator.

Ah yes, that's why there are some state of the art telescopes there, as well as Mars simulations for NASA and the ESA.

[cubby]

Then you have America which has tons of space where to build solar farms and good environment for the sun and they keep making up excuses why its not a good option for them.

There is no end in sight to how much opportunity the United States' has squandered (and I live here). Solar power is just one area of many.

- - - Updated - - -

I've often wonder about the logistics of creating an enormous, nation-sized flotilla in the ocean (somewhere tropical). It could be interesting.

That said, I live immediately adjacent to a nuclear power plant (Palo Verde, which is the largest in the U.S.) and it's honestly marvelous to see when it's in operation. The areal space required for Palo Verde is about twice as much as the solar plant in the article (~1,600 hectares for Palo Verde vs. 727 in Nevada), but it's output it is almost 20 times higher.

TL;DR -- Clean, nuclear energy is absolutely the future. Followed by hydroelectric generating stations (i.e. dams).

I attended a seminar about nuclear energy and how great it really is for power generation. And that most of they fear hysteria is based on lies and misconceptions - especially the contamination and spent fuel rods.

[Gaaz]

I'm not sure you understand how solar is generally implemented. It's not implemented as the sole generation system for a power grid. It's implemented as a secondary system. The main goal is to use solar generation to offset peak power demands, which occur during the daytime (particularly in southern desert regions, what with air conditioning). The generation by solar varies with sunlight, but so do power demands, on almost the same cycle. Implementing sufficient solar lets you even out the "spikiness" of the shift in power load, which eases the adjustments necessary to other systems.

The problem is, solar power does not meet peak power demand curves. Depending on an actual panel and local conditions solar power panels generate close to 85% of their nominal power during 1 hour per day of optimal lighting conditions. Typical energy consumption is almost uniform between 9 00 and 15 00 hours, and another peak comes at 18 00 to 21 30. Obviously it is a little different for different areas. This is a scheme for business-residential sector. For mainly residential it can also look like this:

Solar panels have to be massively overbudget in order to compensate 12-15 peak (quintuple possibly), will produce excess power during 9-12 00 and are useless regarding the 18-21 30. The difference in power consumption between day and evening peaks is negligible (a couple of % difference on average) for areas that have large business sectors. That means that you have 3 possible outcomes:
1. You build a massive system of relatively green solar panels but without storage (x5 to your peak demand difference you wish to cover) and cover the day dime peak. However, evening peak is left in the hands of nuclear and coal power plants. Extreme costs go to basically nothing, because you still need to have enough coal and nuclear power to provide for peak consumption in any case. And nuclear power reactors for example are not very keen on juggling with reactor power settings. It also makes power production very unstable, because you have to react with your power stations not only on a time basis and grid drain, but also multiply it by weather conditions in different parts of the grid. This scheme will also increase wasted power (due to difficulty in power control and prediction) for all systems involved.
2. You add energy storage to your solar power system - all your environment friendliness goes out of the window almost instantly if you use efficient chemical storage. If you use kinetic storage (water and/or mechanical) then your efficiency ratings go out of the window in the same way, and you basically need to expand your solar power grid by another factor of 2 (very optimistically) to provide for the same power requirement. This might partially sort the evening peak consumption problem, but this is not a green solution from any point of view you can look at it.
3. You see past the pseudo green claims and figure out how to make nuclear energy safer, just like russians do with their development of the VVER reactors, instead of relying on generation 1 BWR types like Japan does (enough of them in the US as well). Core containment system should be a "must have", not an "option". Old reactors should be decommissioned and replaced with modern, more powerful ones, that have proper safety systems.

In my opinion, solar power is a neat toy, not a proper instrument. You are not solving your problems with it. You are pretending to solve them, by making someone else's head ache about finding how to dance around your ambitions in order to achieve the same result.

[Pengekaer]

In my opinion, solar power is a neat toy, not a proper instrument. You are not solving your problems with it. You are pretending to solve them, by making someone else's head ache about finding how to dance around your ambitions in order to achieve the same result.

Great and very insightful post mate! Thumbs up.
I do wonder though, why A-power is so disliked. If I recall, France has basically covered their electric consumption with A-power. I am not saying it does not have its risks, but so does literally changing the world's athmosphere by burning coal and oil..

I am open to people saying I, or the France government, have misunderstood something. But when I watch the debates at home (DK), I am honestly sick of the fact that A-power never even gets mentioned as an option. It's like it's utterly tabooed despite the fact that it has proven capable of powering a modern, large country which does consume a lot of energy. Tired of the fact so few considers the French setup as a decent pilot plant for the rest of the developed world.

[cubby]

How do they back that up? I'm not against clean energy (as long as they allow big V8 engines to co exist) but I find that map very hard to believe. Just doing simple math, the article's solar plant is only producing electricity for 25 homes per acre, which is pretty bad IMO. To the people saying the land is worthless, look at Las Vegas. Also, I'm sure the desert animals don't consider it worthless.

Look it up if you're curious - the assumptions are listed on the map. Google is available on the next tab over. Have fun!

I find it fascinating how small a relative area it would take to power the world in solar energy.

[Sylv_]

This concerns me, I'm all for renewable and "clean" energy but to see so much land destroyed for so little is depressing.

Think of Anakin Skywalker. He hates sand.
These were in the middle of a fucking desert.
What land was destroyed exactly?

[Linkedblade]

Supposedly the US is on track to meet the Paris Climate Accords no matter what Trump says.

Huh? Don't say that to the communists on this site. The free market working would drive them insane.

[Kapadons]

No it wouldn't, investment would be put into non-fossil fuel based products and services. Why do you enjoy subsidizing an industry that unloads tens of trillions of dollars of cost onto society and the environment. I thought you free marketers wanted full cost accounting, not welfare moochers.

You make a lot of assumptions about me based on absolutely nothing.

Judging by your preconceived biases and clear lack of understanding how many countries rely massively upon top to bottom oil production , it’s easy to see you really don’t know what our talking about.

[Linkedblade]

If I understand correctly, 1 acre or solar only powers 25 homes? Seems like a massive waste of land and money to me. Put panels on walls and roofs but that's too much land and money to waste for too little output.

Apparently, Elon Musk said it would take a solar field the size of a small county to power the entire US.



Allocating the desert for this is a good idea. Specifically because of the area of sun that it is in is almost perfect for non-moving solar panels. And due to the almost year round clear weather. Barring the calculations that this map uses are true.

[Pengekaer]

There is no end in sight to how much opportunity the United States' has squandered (and I live here). Solar power is just one area of many.

- - - Updated - - -



I attended a seminar about nuclear energy and how great it really is for power generation. And that most of they fear hysteria is based on lies and misconceptions - especially the contamination and spent fuel rods.

Yes, agreed. I may get something wrong here, but spent fuel rods.. arent they extreme in density? Uranium is such a dense material. All the fuel rods of a large plant spent in a year would fit into a quite small space/cave, yes? I could see the problem if the residual product was a volatile gas or something that had to be kept in pressurized flasks.

[Linkedblade]

I find this whole thing so goddam funny. I live in Finland, right now the length of the day is 5h 40min. Solar power is absolutely useless in here because of seasonsa nd the climate overall. Second thing is there isn't that much space where to build since there is forests everywhere.

Then you have America which has tons of space where to build solar farms and good environment for the sun and they keep making up excuses why its not a good option for them.

Well, while the desert is a good idea to use for solar farming there are two reasons why it's a pain in the US. 1) The desert is quite far from really any major city. 2) The infrastructure has to be created to allow it to contribute to the grid. Which require thousands of kilometers of cable and the creation of large battery sites.

[Daelak]

You make a lot of assumptions about me based on absolutely nothing.

Judging by your preconceived biases and clear lack of understanding how many countries rely massively upon top to bottom oil production , it’s easy to see you really don’t know what our talking about.

So it went from World Economic Collapse to some countries whose majority export is oil? Quit while you are far, far, behind. No, they aren't assumptions, you are a conservative who believes that the free market and fossil fuels are the zenith of humanity's potential as a species, deep in denial about the paradigm change taking place right now that will completely overturn your view of how the world works.

[Deleted]

I don't think there's much of an use for a desert anyway.
Also - other big power plants probably require much more money for maintenance and are much more dangerous in case of malfunction.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently, Elon Musk said it would take a solar field the size of a small county to power the entire US.



Allocating the desert for this is a good idea. Specifically because of the area of sun that it is in is almost perfect for non-moving solar panels. And due to the almost year round clear weather. Barring the calculations that this map uses are true.

I would like to see an actual scientific data for this, because similar maps are shown frequently, yet I doubt they are accurate for current effectivness of solar panels. I have a bad feeling they are actually assuming 100% of sunlight is converted into power, which is rather unachievable.

[cubby]

Yes, agreed. I may get something wrong here, but spent fuel rods.. arent they extreme in density? Uranium is such a dense material. All the fuel rods of a large plant spent in a year would fit into a quite small space/cave, yes? I could see the problem if the residual product was a volatile gas or something that had to be kept in pressurized flasks.

The information I got from the seminar said that ALL of the spent fuel rods in the history of nuclear reactors would fit inside a football stadium, within the borders of the field, and not rise above the ceiling. Which is significantly smaller than I thought it would be.

[Pengekaer]

The information I got from the seminar said that ALL of the spent fuel rods in the history of nuclear reactors would fit inside a football stadium, within the borders of the field, and not rise above the ceiling. Which is significantly smaller than I thought it would be.

Wouldn't surprise me. No doubt the waste is highly dangerous, but sounds like a few deep earth caves could harbor virtually all of it. Build a bunker down there, close the door and throw away the key...? I know it is anything but that easy, but compared to all the BS proposals, this is tested and tried at least. And it can compensate for varying energy depends at different hours.

[Tackhisis]

Desert is the worst place for the solar panels, as they are electronic machinery and require cooling. Plus, there is no battery technology that can safely accumulate those hundreds of GWh during the off-peak hours.

[cubby]

Wouldn't surprise me. No doubt the waste is highly dangerous, but sounds like a few deep earth caves could harbor virtually all of it. Build a bunker down there, close the door and throw away the key...? I know it is anything but that easy, but compared to all the BS proposals, this is tested and tried at least. And it can compensate for varying energy depends at different hours.

And you bring up a key factor in energy management. While solar is definitely the future/far-future solution, nuclear is now and proven, and can handle surges and low need times. While battery capacity and tech is moving along VERY nicely, nuclear I think is key to make solar work effectively and consistently.

[Daelak]

I don't think there's much of an use for a desert anyway.
Also - other big power plants probably require much more money for maintenance and are much more dangerous in case of malfunction.

- - - Updated - - -



I would like to see an actual scientific data for this, because similar maps are shown frequently, yet I doubt they are accurate for current effectivness of solar panels. I have a bad feeling they are actually assuming 100% of sunlight is converted into power, which is rather unachievable.

Why is it unachievable? The surface area can be spread around the continental US where needed.