Nevada Solar One Pictures

An aerial view of Nevada Solar One. The site takes up about 300 acres and contains 760 mirror arrays measuring about 100 meters each. Roughly 184,000 mirrors are installed at Solar One, a [64-megawatt] solar thermal plant that will go live next month in Boulder City, Nev. The mirrors direct sunlight on an oil-filled tube. The oil is then used to create steam, which turns a turbine.

Added 1:39 am, see previous post for details about the project.

People standing under one of the mirror arrays.

Comments

[Cervus]

So, what's the power output of this system? Has to be good for a few megawatts.

[cendrizzi]

According to wikipedia it is rated at 65MW

[Thomas Pedersen]

I think such solar troughs ought to have a second mirror (like large telescopes) above the receiver in order to utilize a much greater part of the circumference. This should also lower peak temperatures on the surface and thereby the longevity of the thermal oil.

On a different note, here is an interesting link to a study on the merits of solar tracking across Europe

[Kit P.]

Now imagine 200 of these. What is the environmental impact of building and maintaining them compared to one new nuke? Yucca Mountain is about 200 miles north of this site and the terrain is about the same. Every anti-nuke rants about spent fuel. Clearly the environmental impact of 2000 solar projects is huge compared to all of commercial nukes.

[Thomas Pedersen]

Kit P wrote:

Clearly the environmental impact of 2000 solar projects is huge compared to all of commercial nukes.

You need to explain that. Other than land use I fail to see the environmental impact. I do not regard "putting something made of steel on top of the desert" as environmental impact.

Due to the shade and cooling effect of the mirrors, conditions for vegetation may improve enough for plant growth to start?

If so, I propose employing goats/sheep as "lawnmowers" :-)

[Chad K]

What's the efficiency of this method vs regular tracking solar?

[Kit P.]

LCA per ISO 14000 is a systematic way to evaluate the cradle-to-grave environmental impact of doing something. There are large environmental impacts for manufacturing stuff, especially aluminum and concrete. Divide the impact by the amount of electricity produced by the solar system and comparisons can be made to other sources of making electricity.

I think this project is very cool and would judge the environmental impact acceptable if I lived in Nevada because I have studied that environment and know how the the electricity that will be offset is produced. However, place the same project in a different location and the environmental impact may be very unacceptable.

In general, large utility projects have the environmental impact carefully evaluated and monitored. Contrast that with someone who puts expensive solar PV panels on their roof to feel good about themselves. Like Thomas, they 'fail to see the environmental impact' because they are not trained to make very complex evaluations.

Let me inject some complexity. I agree with Thomas that land use is not an issue because the desert is ugly and useless. However, maybe the people in Boulder City think the desert is beautiful. The only reason they can live in Boulder City is that electricity is used to provide AC.

This solar project is not environmentally friendly but meets an acceptable standard. It will provide electricity to those who choose live in an environment with a low carrying capacity such that imported electricity and water are required.

[Nordic]

A very cool looking project. About half a section of land. I would be really interested in seeing how vegetation would be affected. The shade cast by the panels would increase available soil moisture, but I am sure much of the soil is compacted from construction activities, or access roads. The veg would have to be controlled. I am sure you wouldn't want a fire running through the site. I fight fires in this kind of terrain and environment - a cheatgrass fire when the winds are high and humidity low can really rip accross the landscape. Some vegetation, however would be nice if only to help keep the mirrors clean longer.

When I look at the top photo I can't help but think of a poor intern getting handed a squeegee and a bucket of water just after the sun falls behind the mountain.

[GreyFlcn]

And nuclear doesn't require tons of highly refined machining of metals and concrete?

Or massive strip mines to provide the materials, which have to be shipped halfway around the world, electroplated with gigawatts of electricity.

Just paying off the energy debt on nuclear takes decades.

Thinfilm solar panels can repay their energy debt in a few months.

_

Furthermore, these aren't even solar panels, these are mirrors.
Far less complex to manufacture.

And if they use recycled steel, which is quite common, since US steel has a higher recycling rate than an extraction rate, then that goes down as well.

And lastly, compared to normal solar panels, these are about double the effeciency.

_

I'd love to see an LCA comparison
But no, I'd doubt that it compared to nukes at all.

Especially within the first decade of operations.

[Peter Buck]

Could this be it (Google Earth, 35 degrees 48' 16.6" N, 114 degrees 38' 39.03" W)? Looks like when the picture was taken, one of four blocks had its mirrors on and the other three were in some stage of preparation -- some with the frames in place, some with just the landscaping done.

[Gregor]

I've mentioned this before but thought I would bring it up again. What if every house, building, etc. had a solar panel array on it thus contributing to the grid and their own usage. Would the enviromental impact be as great? If we are building a house or building anyway, why not make it an energy producing unit?

One way or another, whatever we do is going to have an impact on the environment, I guess it is a matter of trying to limit that impact as much as possible. How much impact is there in building solar panels?

[Paul Dietz]

And nuclear doesn't require tons of highly refined machining of metals and concrete?

It could be that it requires less. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I suspect it does. Certainly nuclear displaces much less area from use by natural ecosystems in the plant itself.

[Harvey D.]

It is unbelievable to read that so many find ways to complaint against the cleanest power source, i.e. - SOLAR-.

Come on....let's be more reasonable.

[Thomas Foreman]

SOLARIZE

[Gerry Wolff]

Further information about concentrating solar power (CSP) may be found at:

http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm

and

http://www.trecers.net/index.html

and

http://www.trec.net.au/

[Thomas Pedersen]

I agree that roof-top solar panels is a more elegant solution than large arrays in the desert. A panel on every roof-top also diminishes the production cut when an odd cloud passes by.

Decentralized solar power production (again, roof-tops) does not require extra power lines to be built, but this cost may pale in comparison with installing power converters in every home. Although this latter cost may in the future be shared BEV charging...

However, solar thermal plants like this can potentially (I don't know whether this one does) store heat during daytime to drive steam turbines at night as well.

Economy of scale vs. decentralized flexibility. It's a tough call...

Here's an idea: Why not make concentrating photo voltaics (CPV) the same way - a cylindrical lens (as opposed to a spherical) with a "trough" of Spectrolab high efficiency cells in the centre line. This should result in a much simpler construction with only minor loss compared to two-axis tracking.

[J.C., Sr.]

Impact Shmimpact. C'mon it,s the desert. The only reason there is life out there is casinos and cathouses. Wait ;til the money comes rolling in. Is that all there is is 300 acres? When will wind turbines get rolling off the East coast? And they produce all night.

[Engineer-Poet]

I can just imagine soaring a hang glider in the thermal from the radiators.  Is that the black area in the foreground of the top picture, or are they part of the machinery further back?

[Dan]

Within the next 15 to 20 years, nanotechnology will provide society, smaller panels which can generate the same about of output as these larger panels.

Solar units of this type by that time, will be affordable for household usage and market-ready for widespread implementation. Along with this the creation of industrial electric storage facilities would surely make solar generation part of the every day grid.

About the same time technology will advance enough for widespread production of biomass and clean-coal generation. I'm afraid, however, all we have until then is coal & nuclear generation, and good old no-nonsense energy efficiency and conservation measures (the cheapest, most avaiable, and most affordable source of generation today!)

The question I have with this large array, is the cost v. the return. Anyone know those numbers?

Don't think vegetation will be any issue in that terrain.

Lastly, hopefully Nevada doesn't have baseball-size hail in its forecast. Then again global warming enthusiasts might seem to think so ;)

[Kit P.]

Roof top solar PV is not a very elegant idea at all, especially when the first decade is considered. That is because they do not work that long. Maybe someday.

I was reading a story about a California developer putting solar panels on 4000 square foot, $600 k, homes. The first thing I noticed was large windows and small overhangs. This is also a poor area for solar resources. The local PUD is a leader in solar PV. They have already figured out that roof top solar is a bad idea. I worked for this utility many years ago. They never published that the solar panels they installed stopped working. They also do not brag about their present output.

[Paul Dietz]

Roof top solar PV is not a very elegant idea at all,

It would also likely lead to a great many deaths and injuries, compared to nuclear. Working on roofs is very hazardous.

[J.C., Sr.]

Hey Kit P. In my lifetime I've had a dozen cars stop working for me. It never stopped me from running out and buying another. And don't even count the unrenewable carbon I've dumped into the tank and atmosphere. Maybe that solar project the power company took on was just another PR gone sour. They are married to the coal and oil industries.

[David Delcor]

I would like to know how does the desert dust affect the efficiency of this technology. If there is any automatic cleaning system and if there is any company specialized in providing this kind of solutions. I would also like to know which comapny provides the mirrors.

Besides I would recomend (in fact it should in my opinion be obligaatory) to allways give numbers, units and references. Specially so that nobody would make coments like:
"It could be that it requires less. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I suspect it does. Certainly nuclear displaces much less area from use by natural ecosystems in the plant itself".

If there is not unit don't post it.
nonumbernopost.blogspot.com

One last thing Gregor, I have homework for you:

- Find the economical and energy costs of a Nuclear Plant:
-Construction
-Mantainance
-Comissioning
-Decomissioning
-Mineral mining
-Processing of uranium
-Disposal of the residuals
-Transport of materials
-Security
-water usage

[Kit P.]

I am an advocate of a PTC to for solar. I am not complaining about solar that works like Nevada Solar One. It is solar that does not work that gripes me.

Funny thing too, unlike JC, expect my cars to keep running too. I expect my new Corolla to last 30 years. I have two low end Fords with over 500,000 miles on them. The purpose of a car is transportation not a big status symbols. The purpose of a power plant is to make electricity. After your favorite boutique generator makes electricity, we can debate if it is cleaner than coal.

[Nabloid]

We have to learn how to crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run.

This is just another step in the right direction.

Where does all energy on this planet come from? I'm just glad we are starting to go direct to the source of energy we have access to.