What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- ennTOXX, on 04/14/2008, -1/+11l'm curious to know if they make good money doing this or just for the sake of the technology and eco?... :||
- SickMonkey, on 04/14/2008, -1/+10They probably make their investment back in about 5 to 12 years which is pretty good. Residential solar panels typically take 25-30 years to payback their cost, so it is much more efficient to build larger arrays out in the desert where the land is cheap and you can build for a lot less because of the economy of scale. Most of these are getting built because they are also partially subsidized by utility tax funds and the investment can be depreciated over a few years which brings in a lot of third party investor capital looking for a good tax shelter. All in all they work well and the payback is fairly decent, but it doesn't eliminate the need for plants that run on fossil fuels to carry you at full capacity when the sun isn't shining. That's the main reason why more aren't being built, not the cost or return on investment.
- robopuppy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Yes, they make the money back. The engineering firm I work for did two of these projects, and they get a lot of government assistance to make this sort of thing work out for investors, including the bending of certain regulations aimed at protecting citizens.
- sustainablogger, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11ennTOXX... can't say if they are, but there are definitely a number of private companies and VCs investing heavily in this technology... so, the sense out there is that it can "make good money..."
- Webwonk, on 04/14/2008, -0/+16Google is among the VCs investing in solar thermal, backing eSolar with $10 million in funding. The key is that these plants can generate "utility-scale" power, which is much harder with photovoltaic installations. The theory is that Google wants to eventually use thermal solar and high-altitude wind power to provide energy for its data centers. Here's more background:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/J ...
- Bukowsky, on 04/14/2008, -2/+24Did anyone else notice that 5 out of 13 were located in the Mojave Desert... and 9 out of 13 were located in the US.... that makes me proud to know that we are utilizing clean & renewable resources.
- h0ser, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7and great math skills :)
- davidrools, on 04/15/2008, -0/+8And 7 of 9 are in California. Whoever says government mandates never do any good...is wrong. The 20% requirement spurred innovators and led utilities to find economically viable clean energy sources. The green economy could be a great way to boost the dead and dying economies of rural America.
- smitas, on 04/14/2008, -1/+3When are all the Thermal Projects going to be this much Eco-friendly?
- v666, on 04/14/2008, -9/+3it was originally submitted here http://digg.com/environment/World_s_13_Biggest_Sol ...
- EdgeOfEpsilon, on 04/14/2008, -0/+6Solar thermal is just the stepping-stone before thin-film photovoltaic becomes available.
http://www.daughtersoftiresias.org/greenwiki/Solar ...
^ just someone's personal wiki, but it's dead on.- prisoner24601, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1As I went through the projects listed in the article and noted how many acres of land each one took up, it made me wonder what the total acres of "roof space" of all the homes and businesses in the world is. Seems like PV will be the ultimate winner just because it will eventually be so easy to deploy on a "distributed" basis on all the unused space we already have available right where usage is occurring anyway.
- dbski4it, on 04/14/2008, -9/+2Not a single one of these projects is operating yet. a few are just on the drawing board.
- vostek, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11um no, read the article, there is one in Mojave that is currently operating and generating 310 MW
- dbski4it, on 04/14/2008, -10/+1I stand corrected. One out of 13 of "The World’s 13 Biggest Solar Thermal Energy Projects" is actually working. At this point Al Gore's house is probably in the top ten of working solar.
- vostek, on 04/14/2008, -0/+11um no, read the article, there is one in Mojave that is currently operating and generating 310 MW
- vostek, on 04/14/2008, -0/+10my community in AZ is building a solar thermal power generator with scrapyard parts i.e., very little money. everything is on target so far.
- SmellyFingers, on 04/14/2008, -7/+2These elongate my penis.
- carpespasm, on 04/14/2008, -2/+2do they engorge it with blood as well or is it more of a stretching situation?
- wefarrell, on 04/14/2008, -0/+2I wouldn't be surprised if these things are a lot easier to maintain and upgrade than photovoltaics since it's a ***** of mirrors instead of a ***** of solar panels spread out in the desert.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1A team of guys with windex vs a team of electrical engineers? Yes, that sounds a great deal cheaper.
- killbert24, on 04/14/2008, -0/+1Captain Planet would be proud. Similar projects * all buildings on earth=end to environmental concern.
- greenlight2001, on 04/14/2008, -0/+7By the looks of things, 2010-2011 will be the years of solar power starting to kick some fossil fuel ass!
- mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -0/+4Its no surprise the USA is leading the way.
- jamesdew, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2well it wouldn't work very well in the UK. We hardly ever have any sun
- mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Looks like the EU is thinking it will,
"Also today, the European Commission published a map of the solar power potential of Europe. The map is produced by the Photovoltaic Geographical Information System of the Joint Research Centre which also includes an interactive service allowing users to calculate the solar power potential of any location in Europe.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2007/2007-03-30 ...- jamesdew, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1spain is just a tad sunnier than the uk
- mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1I agree.
- jamesdew, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1spain is just a tad sunnier than the uk
- mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Looks like the EU is thinking it will,
- jamesdew, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2well it wouldn't work very well in the UK. We hardly ever have any sun
- joeanon, on 04/15/2008, -10/+2WASTE OF MONEY
We need a replacement for OIL much more than we need more electric capacity.
Battery technology will still take at least 3 years to provide a car that can do 300 miles and charge in 10 min. Plus jet fuel, heating fuel and MASSIVE conversion costs.
The solution is biofuel, but the question for investors is WHAT KNID.
Biofuel, as oil are really solar powered, but engineered by millions of years of evolution, not a few thousand of science.
So USE biology to capture solar and STORE it in a form that doesn't degrade or lose charge over time... solution = BIOFUEL
Well managed it doesn't effect cropland at all plus if you feel like it you can also turn waste products into diesel or ethanol.
Since they've officially invested a diesel fuel cell, though WHO KNOWS cost, I think it's safe to say BIOFUEL is the way to go.
You provide the PERFECT transition because many internal combustion cars can run on processed biofuels or be converted to run on many fuel types.
That means MUCH small transport investments. Instead of a quick chaotic jump to electric transport, you buy time for battery research. Stuff like the Super Capacitors look awesome, lithium polymer is ok, but it's no OIL when it comes to portable energy density, which is what transport is all about.
Transport cause the price of EVERYTHING to go up, even coal, which equates the price of electricity in most places.
Sooooo the obvious solution is HIGH YIELD biofuel that doesn't compete with cropland.
If you're too stupid to know what that is, I don't think I should tell you.
To me, the energy solution is clear and simple. I find it funny how few people can see how easy it would be to produce nearly unlimited amounts of cheap diesel.
As far as GAS goes.. I'd suggest you consider the immediate DEVALUATION of OIL and ESPECIALLY gasoline burning transport.
For specialty purposes and small amounts it may be ok, BUT there simply is no easy AND cheap way to produce massive amounts of gas, at least not immediately like we could diesel.
The US could become the diesel capital of the world IF ANY administration would just SHUT UP and listen.
Most candidates like biofuel, but really are idiots about it and think soy and corn and such are the ways to go...
That's a joke people.
I'm laughing at your lack of understanding how to make the transition to renewable energy ... NOW.- davidrools, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Biofuels are very energy-inefficient. Transporting energy in the form of electricity is fast, efficient, and...wow the infrastructure is already in place! Batteries will get better. But in the meantime, why do you need to go 300 miles and charge in 10 minutes? Check out the Aptera and Tesla Roadster for a good start in commuter cars. Once a standardized exchangeable battery system can be implemented, long trips will be just as easy as with gas engines. Or new charging capabilities go into production. Either way, electric has many advantages that biofuels do not. Also, burning bio fuels still creates pollution infinitely greater than a renewable electricity infrastructure.
- alexmensen, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3"Sooooo the obvious solution is HIGH YIELD biofuel that doesn't compete with cropland.
If you're too stupid to know what that is, I don't think I should tell you."
I'm sorry but what is this high yield futuristic bionic fuel you speak of???
I'm pretty sure the most efficient forms of biofuel come from sugar beats and sugar cane but its not that great.... - Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Biofuels aren't the obvious short term (20 year) solution, the success or failure of any of the currently contending successors to oil is heavily dependent on current and future research successes, such as large scalable algae based fuel or supercaps. Give it some time before screaming wildly about success. Go ahead and invest your money in biofuels if you're so confident, but I'll still hold my money until something becomes mature enough to fuel my future.
- Fishnchipsman, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4I've heard that if they filled the Nevada desert with solar panels it could power the entire country.
Now why don't they do that?- drfluffer, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1National security. It may attract aliens.
- irvman21, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Producing a bunch of power in the middle of the desert doesn't do you any good unless you can get it to where people actually live and use it. The costs associated with the transmission from these middle of nowhere solar thermal plants are enormous and make the idea economically infeasible.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Also, the cost of the photovoltaics or thermal systems themselves is also prohibitive, nevermind the transmission problems you mentioned. There is also nighttime power use/storage to work out. If you can front the billions of dollars to build such a system, by all means proceed.
- madroneDorf, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1A few things.
#1 Solar thermal for the most part isn't baseload power, its variable. Granted new solar thermal is a lot better due to ionized salt water to store the energy overnight. However stil its not a reliable constant source, such as Nuclear or coal.
#2 A lot of power is lost via transformation and over the grid. Solar thermal power generated in Nevada would be good for powering the surrounding states, but not the Midwest, The Northwest or the East Coast.
#3 Where else are we going to drop bombs?- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2#1 I thought that super hot salts under very high insulation were used to store the energy overnight in new solar thermal.
#2 If you're going to scale to a solar farm a decent portion of the size of Nevada, then HV DC is likely your man.
#3 Simple, Canada. Saves on bomber fuel costs too.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2#1 I thought that super hot salts under very high insulation were used to store the energy overnight in new solar thermal.
- mal1964, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2The casinos need it to make more money.
Sarcasm.
@fish, I thought i was in his reply - FaithclubDotNet, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2I love solar power. Once we cover deserts with it, we'll have to expand to space, and send lasers to collection facilities on Earth. There really is no shortage of Energy in the future... unless we can't get over this oil to electric/hydrogen transfer.
- chaz125, on 04/15/2008, -1/+0Where have US and UK governments been while fossil fuel reserves have been depleting rapidly, OPEC is massively influencing the price of oil, and nuclear/ fossil fuel plants have been de-commissioned? Hiding their heads in the sand/ fighting wars/ not caring about obscene oil and energy prices for their citizens, or much too busy making/ losing money on the world's financial markets/ share investments?
GOVERNMENTS DID FORESEE THE PRESENT SITUATION> IT DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.
Who pays, WE DO as private individuals TOTALLY LET DOWN BY LACK OF PREPARATION FOR TODAY'S SITUATION
by GOVERNMENTS WHO DO NOT CARE and who have DELIBERATELY NOT ACTED.........................................! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! - irvman21, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1There is a significant drawback to building large scale green energy projects in the middle of nowhere, having extra power on the grid doesn't do you any good if you can't get it to where it is needed. If you would like to educate yourself, check out the situation that occurs in west Texas on many days. The abundance of wind energy production in west Texas creates a situation where the wholesale price per MW goes negative, i.e. the companies who own the wind generation units PAY to put the energy on the grid. It is literally worth less than nothing, until the subsidies are factored in. A MW of energy produced in the middle of the desert is not equal to a MW of energy produced in a congested part of the grid, even before losses are factored in.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1We could invent hydrogen trucks. Then we could create hydrogen on the site of the solar farms, and use the hydrogen to power the trucks to ship the hydrogen around. Just a thought.
- Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Wow, now you're talking about a negative profit. The cost of such conversion facilities, many hydrogen powered trucks, and the loss due to conversion, just wow. Hydrogen is no near term solution, I put it almost as far off as fusion.
- FaithclubDotNet, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1We could invent hydrogen trucks. Then we could create hydrogen on the site of the solar farms, and use the hydrogen to power the trucks to ship the hydrogen around. Just a thought.
- mitch37, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Forgetting the 1000m high EnviroMission Solar Tower? Its still in planning, but wicked cool!
http://dsc.discovery.com/video/player.html?playerI ... - captric, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1FUNNY - I dont see CANADA anywhere on here!!! Typical, all talk and no show.
- bushout, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2
Maybe that's because it's cold as ***** up here? - Stratochief66, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Perhaps because Canada gets like half as many watts per square meter from the sun as California? It makes more sense to invest in wind or nuclear for Canada. Also, Canada is all talk on GHGs as the federal government doesn't have much control over the pollution put out by the provinces. Note the ~40% increase in emissions vs the -10% goal for Kyoto...
- bushout, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2
- reefsurfer226, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3i like, but i want more! put more in AZ!
- cryosteel, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0Hopefully governments will spend taxpayer earnings more on infrastructure necessities like this and less on forcing conflicting narrow moral rules over hundreds of millions of extremely diverse people, thus ensuring endless domestic conflict. Morality is best decided locally by the community. Giant engineering projects that benefit the whole civilization are best handled federally or nationally.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is