It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama-Backed Solar Plant Could Be Shut Down For Not Producing Enough Energy

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   

California regulators may force a massive solar thermal power plant in the Mojave Desert to shut down after years of under-producing electricity — not to mention the plant was blinding pilots flying over the area and incinerating birds. The Ivanpah solar plant could be shut down if state regulators don’t give it more time to meet electricity production promises it made as part of its power purchase agreements with utilities, Read more: dailycaller.com...


I sincerely hope we can develop a viable alternative energy source, but from what has been said so far, Solar still has a ways to go. There are solar farms going up all over my area, but in talking to people here, if it wasn't for the government subsidies, it would never work. Cost vs. profit doesn't add up.

And as it stands now, the power company MUST buy the solar power at it's cost, even if they don't need it at the time. (pass that on to the consumer)

What is the hang up with this? cost of technology? or just the simple return on investment issue?




posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   
It's not the most flawed concept of producing energy and compared to the luggage gathered producing via nuclear means it is worth at least some effort before it is sent to the scrapheap.

I think one of the biggest problems with renewables is the fact it's fairly new, all this development in producing renewable energy on mass is a 21st century endeavour.

Telephone communication was once costly...Aluminium was once worth it's weight in gold. The point I'm trying to make is through research and development we refine the process of what we are creating making it more cost effective.

One of the big problems with renewables is the nay-sayers who jump at the chance to pee all over any flaws. That's my opinion anyway.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

One of the big problems with renewables is the nay-sayers who jump at the chance to pee all over any flaws. That's my opinion anyway.


I can see your point on that. I really wish we could come up with something that eliminates the need for burning gasoline to get around. But Solar is being touted as "ready to go" and it's not. I think the big surge in building all these solar farms is a bit ahead of it's time and there will be a bit of a mess to deal with, once the subsidies wear out.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I somewhat agree, kind of like mobile phones solar is out of date by the time it comes off the production line. We just don't know when to go all in and if it's the right time.

Solar energy production would fall on it's ass without subsidies. But people want results now and the tech isn't ready for that. On the other hand modern super cars can manage 30 mile to a gallon... We can get cleaner and we can advance the tech. We just need more time and money, people seldom ever want to waste the two though.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
What is the hang up with this? cost of technology? or just the simple return on investment issue?
I read the article. There have to be engineers at the facility working on increasing the output and efficiency, but it doesn't appear they have been interviewed to get details of the challenges they are facing.

Either there's some flaw in the design which will prevent it from reading 100% of predicted output no matter what they do, or, there are solvable problems and I have no idea which is the case from reading that article.

However it seems one problem was building such a big facility in the first place if the technology isn't proven. 1.6 billion dollars is a big loan. They could have built a much smaller facility to work out the bugs for less than a billion dollars.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
How pathetic of op to put Obama in the title. Pathetic and transparent.


XL5

posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
3danimator2014, thread starters have to use the title that the link gives.



posted on Mar, 18 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: XL5
3danimator2014, thread starters have to use the title that the link gives.


I was not aware of that. Network dude. I sent you a message.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: XL5
3danimator2014, thread starters have to use the title that the link gives.
That's a requirement for the news forums. It's not a requirement for this forum nor other non-news forums. In fact for one of my threads in this science forum, I used the exact title from the article, and ATS couldn't handle it and a bunch of mods were changing the ATS title so it would NOT match the scientific article, which was from the National Geographic website.


XL5

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Ahh hmm, seems a bit hypocritical of ATS then. On topic, as long as the upkeep on the solar plants are low, it shouldn't be disbanded or torn down, its not like they regain the money when its torn down. They could add bird deterrence systems for cheap if that was really the issue.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: XL5
3danimator2014, thread starters have to use the title that the link gives.


I was not aware of that. Network dude. I sent you a message.


no problem. I was just copying the title from the article.
Just laziness on my part.



posted on Mar, 21 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

However it seems one problem was building such a big facility in the first place if the technology isn't proven. 1.6 billion dollars is a big loan. They could have built a much smaller facility to work out the bugs for less than a billion dollars.


I am all for alternative energy, but it needs to make sense and needs to be more efficient then what we have now. Or at the very least, produce less emissions. I think it will get there. But like you, I think this scale of project should not be tried until the system is fully functional and can operate as advertised. In the long run, this is funded by us, the taxpayers. I know my wife gets mad when I piss away money, it's a shame she can't give the boneheads who waste money in Washington the stink eye.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



And as it stands now, the power company MUST buy the solar power at it's cost, even if they don't need it at the time. (pass that on to the consumer) What is the hang up with this? cost of technology? or just the simple return on investment issue?


That´s how it works here. In 2009 I bought photovoltaik panels worth 18k€ and since I reap 43cents/kWh it has paid off last year. Now I sell for 43cents/kWh to the power company and pay 24cents/kWh when I buy. Crazy, right? And I was late with this. Now you get like 16cents/kWh and pay 24cents or more if you buy it.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

Of course, this way I´m making double profit. I buy all my power for 24cents and what comes from the roof is sold 100%. That´s the scheme. The loosers are the power companies / the tax payers that subsidize it. It´s in the 300€ range every month, that´s about 10€ per day.
And if one day (2029) the contract runs out and the hardware still works, I´ll just rewire the system to use the generated power for my own and buy additional if needed. That´s how you are forced to do it now.
edit on 22-3-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join