Feds approve large new solar power plants in Arizona and Nevada

[Redfairen]

Interior Secretary Sally Jewell announced Monday that the department has approved a large solar power plant in western Arizona, as well as two other projects on federal land in Nevada.

The Quartszite Solar Energy Project in La Paz County, about 10 miles north of Quartszite, would occupy about 1,675 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

The Quartszite plant would be capable of generating 100 megawatts of electricity, which would be enough electricity for about 25,000 homes while the plant is running. It would incorporate technology to store heat and generate electricity when clouds pass or after sunset.

The other two projects announced Monday are the 350-megawatt Midland Solar Energy Project proposed by Boulder Solar Power and the 70-megawatt New York Canyon Geothermal Project in Nevada proposed by Terra-Gen Power.


http://www.azcentral.com/business/news/articles/20130603feds-approve-large-solar-power-plant-western-arizona.html?nclick_check=1

[patrice]

1. Cool your house with the same stuff that's heating it up. Makes SENSE! to me. nt

[msongs]

2. rooftop solar for every builiding in arizona first nt

[oldhippie]

4. You know, of course, that doesn't work .....

Not every roof has a view of the sun. Some face north, some are shaded during the peak solar hours. Some don't have enough area to be worth the wiring to get their output to the grid.

"Solar on every rooftop" is just a stupid slogan and makes people think the person doesn't know what he is talking about.

And I'm a solar advocate.

[kristopher]

5. "And I'm a solar advocate."

No, you aren't. You do pretend to be one though, while you ceaselessly try to undermine all renewables.

[dumbcat]

7. It would seem to me that one can advocate sensible uses

of solar energy and not support unreasonable ideas. The poster has a point. It makes no sense to put solar on a roof that doesn't see the sun due to shading or orientation. I don't think you can call that undermining renewables.

[kristopher]

8. You can when it is part of a years-long pattern.

Thank you for your 'concern'.

[XemaSab]

9. You're right

Houses in Arizona are all in the shade.

We suck.

Sorry for wasting your time, sir.

[dumbcat]

11. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand

the attitude? I didn't say all houses in Arizona are in the shade. I didn't say anyone sucked. I don't see where I was wasting my time.

I said it doesn't make sense to put solar on a roof that doesn't see the sun due to shading or orientation. Thus, I would have to agree with Oldhippie that the slogan "Solar on every rooftop" is technically nonsensical.

So why all the hurt? Is it because I am non-PC? Or insensitive? I have been using a PV system on my house for almost 20 years and I support renewable energy and sustainable living in my community. I have worked in the field for many years and am a Professional Member of the American Solar Energy Society. I have been reading the journals for years. I am on the regional sustainable communities council. I wanted to come on this forum and group to learn and contribute. I was warned that there would be differing opinions, but I don't get the hostile attitude here.

What have I done wrong?

[XemaSab]

12. We get a lot of trolls in here

[dumbcat]

14. Well, thanks for the response, but the question remains.

OK, so you get trolls here. What did I do to identify myself as a troll? So hopefully I won't do it again?

[XemaSab]

15. It's a time-honored tradition in the E/E to say

"X won't work because of Y and therefore X sucks and we shouldn't do X."


To wit:

"Windmills won't work because of birds and bats and therefore wind sucks and we shouldn't do wind."

"Solar thermal won't work because of desert tortoises and therefore solar thermal sucks and we shouldn't do solar thermal."

"Nuclear won't work because of the risk of accidents and therefore nuclear sucks and we shouldn't do nuclear."

"Natural gas won't work because of fracking and therefore natural gas sucks and we shouldn't do natural gas."

"Giant solar panel farms won't work because of the industrialization of open space and therefore giant solar panel farms suck and we shouldn't do giant solar panel farms."

"Hydro won't work because of salmon and therefore hydro sucks and we shouldn't do hydro."

"Geothermal won't work because of earthquakes and therefore geothermal sucks and we shouldn't do geothermal."

"Ethanol won't work because of Monsanto and therefore ethanol sucks and we shouldn't do ethanol."

"Rooftop solar won't work because of shaded rooftops and therefore rooftop solar sucks and we shouldn't do rooftop solar."


Note well that EVERYONE on here does this CONSTANTLY, but when a new person shows up and casts aspersions on LITERALLY the only thing that 95% of us agree is the bee's knees, well, one must wonder.

[dumbcat]

18. OK, it seems a strange time honored tradition.

But I never said "Rooftop solar won't work because of shaded rooftops and therefore rooftop solar sucks and we shouldn't do rooftop solar."

I pointed out that a previous poster had noted that PV panels don't work well in the shade and in a northern orientation, and noted that pointing that out did not seem to me to be anti-renewables. I don't think either I or the previous poster ever said that we shouldn't do rooftop solar (I have rooftop solar). He pointed out, and I concur, that solar on EVERY rooftop is a nonsensical idea.

OK, I'll drop it. I live and learn.

[dumbcat]

13. Anyone?

Did I do something wrong?

[oldhippie]

16. Yes, you failed to echo the "All renewables, all the time" mantra ...

You will find (if you decide to stick around) that anyone that doesn't agree with and support the all renewables all the time mantra will be jumped on by our resident "policy analyst" and some others as a Climate Change denier, RW shill, Pro nuc spokesman, etc., etc., etc.

Even if you are pro renewable energy, or especially pro solar (as I am), if you dare to discuss or disclose any issue that sheds a negative light on renewables, you will be jumped on. Bring up cost, subsidies, or (the horror) that PV panels don't work very well in the shade or pointed north, then you are a naysayer. And don't even THINK of mentioning that nuclear may have a role in a mix of energy sources that may cut down on carbon emissions and save the environment. That's just the way it is here.

And then you had the gall to directly confront the self-anointed "policy expert" in the group. That is not good for a newbie. You need at least a thousand posts to get any "creds" around here.

There are a lot of other forums on the 'net that you can join to discuss energy issues that are much more disciplined and cordial than here. But I hope you will stick around and lend your opinions, even if they challenge the mantra.

[Politicalboi]

3. ALL new homes should be solar run

And we should use the energy from highways to run cities at night. Sad to think if Pearl Harbor happened today, it would take us years to be ready to build planes and tanks like we did then. We could do this overnight if we really WANTED too. Just one oil spill alone would pay for half or more US homes to have solar installed in their homes for free. We need to stop fracking, and using fossil fuels. We need to go green and make it the LAW.

[Socialistlemur]

6. How much do they charge for electricity?

I assume this is subsidized? Or they charge extra?

[XemaSab]

10. That's only 2,918 square feet of public land per house!

Score!

[hunter]

17. Once you've dug yourself into a hole you can't get out of...

... make yourself another shovel so you can dig even faster!