Energy developers are staking their claims to major swaths of the Mojave Desert in Nevada, California and Arizona in an effort to exploit California's growing demand for solar power.
Solar panels could soon cover large sections of the Mojave Desert, thanks to California's growing demand for renewable energy sources. (Photo courtesy Gene Kolkman)
The reason?
California's aggressive renewable energy portfolio standard, which forces electric utilities to use more energy from the sun, wind and other renewable resources, is a key factor, said Charles Ricker, senior vice president of BrightSource Energy, an Oakland, Calif.-based designer and builder of solar power plants.
California utilities must obtain 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2015.
"This is just a huge market for clean power," said John O'Donnell, executive vice president of Ausra, an independent developer based in Palo Alto, Calif.
This section of the Mojave Desert is "nestled between two huge electric marketplaces, Las Vegas and Los Angeles," Ricker said.
Unlike Nevada, where three coal-fired power plants are planned, California prohibits investor-owned utilities from entering long-term contracts for power from coal plants because of the massive quantities of carbon dioxide coal plants emit. California intends to rely mostly on natural gas-fired plants for the power it cannot obtain from renewable energy sources, O'Donnell said.
In recent rapid-fire succession:
* Ausra promised to develop 1,000 megawatts of solar power and said it is particularly interested in sites near Boulder City.
* FPL Group, the parent of Florida Power & Light Co., said it would invest $1.5 billion in new solar thermal facilities in Florida and California.
* PG&E Corp. joined FPL and Ausra to outline their commitment to solar thermal power development during President Clinton's recent global initiative in New York. The San Francisco utility holding company said it would tap an additional 1,000 megawatts of solar thermal power over the next five years. It is negotiating with several unidentified companies. PG&E noted that the 1,000 megawatts will come on top of earlier announcements to buy 1,000 megawatts of solar power from BrightSource Energy of Oakland and Solel of Israel.
Solel is looking at three sites in the California portion of the Mojave Desert for a 553-megawatt plant that will sell power to PG&E. BrightSource Energy has filed an application for construction with the California Energy Commission for a 400-megawatt solar power plant in California's Ivanpah Valley near Primm.
Acciona Energy spurred development of solar thermal power plants in the Southwest with the successful completion of the 64-megawatt Nevada Solar One power plant in the Eldorado Valley of Boulder City, Acciona spokeswoman Lena Stinsa said. It was the largest solar thermal plant built in 16 years.
Stinsa cited other reasons for the surge in solar power development: legislative support for solar power, awareness of climate change related to greenhouse gas emissions from conventional power plants, concern about energy security and rising costs of fossil fuels. Acciona plans to build a second phase at the power plant, she said.
Reuters has reported that the Bureau of Land Management has received rights-of-way requests for more than 300,000 acres of California desert for 34 large solar plants totaling 24,000 megawatts, but analysts say many of the projects will not be completed.
Ausra's first $500 million, 175-megawatt plant will be in central California. But O'Donnell said the company intends to build others outside of California, possibly near Boulder City, and potentially in Arizona or New Mexico. Within 100 miles of the plants, Ausra intends to establish a manufacturing plant for the solar thermal units.
Gov. Jim Gibbons has told Western governors that he wants to not only develop renewable power for use not only for use in Nevada but also for export, O'Donnell said.
Southern Nevada is close to transmission lines leading to California.
"Transmission is the biggest challenge in figuring out where to put these plants," the Ausra executive said. Many areas with renewable energy have not been developed because they are so far from transmission lines that would carry the power to cities.
If Ausra develops solar thermal plants to sell in Nevada, it would build along a planned transmission line that Sierra Pacific Resources plans to build to Las Vegas or a smaller transmission line that the Southern Nevada Water Authority proposes to build for pumping water that will be piped to Las Vegas from Northern Nevada.
"Almost no place on the planet is growing faster than Clark County, Nevada," O'Donnell said.
O'Donnell said Ausra can generate power from solar thermal plants for 10 cents a kilowatt hour, about half the cost of power from photovoltaic systems.
Nevada Power spokesman Adam Grant said: "We're very interested in progress being made on the solar front, especially if there's any indication in the cost being driven down."
Leave Your Comment
17 comment(s)
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Ely Times does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Sorry, comments have been closed.
Hayduke wrote on Oct 24, 2007 12:30 AM:
" Looks like we got ourselves a bunch of arm-chair experts here. You think you have knowledge? Use it. Don't write comments. Write an article. Set up a public meeting. Do something that actually does something. Talk to the ENEMY, not just those you can agree with. You will never get anywhere writing comments to each other on the internet. The only way that what you are doing could be useful is if it disgusts someone who is educated and proactive enough to take action and better the situation.
-Rudolph the Red "
Owen Kondratuk wrote on Oct 20, 2007 10:08 AM:
" This scares me. Whatever happened to the pristine nature of the desert and it's timeless beauty? Are we going to see solar panels and huge wind turbins and power lines polluting the serenity of the desert? We are the biggest most advanced nation on the panet. Why can't we use nuclear and leave nature alone? The greenies are caught in their own game. They don't want us to drill for our own oil or use clean efficient nuclear so now they have to despoil the deserts they have for so long been trying to keep us out of because we don't know how to take care of nature.
If these huge blights on nature are constructed the deserts will be harmed forever. All for political correctness.
The irony is staggering and not funny. "
Randal wrote on Oct 17, 2007 12:23 PM:
" The swing of the temperature pendulum of Earth has some variation to it, on the order of "thousands" of years. They occur between 40,000 and 100,000 years, and we are only 10,000years since the last one. Even looking at the CO2 graphs, CO2 rises with every warming and drops with every cooling. There might be more CO2 in the air now than in the last 5 million years but no proof it is significant, possibly adding to it, possibly not. There has been less Ice coverage in the last 5 million years than now, so it's not unprecedented. I've said before, we are coming out of an Ice Age (and Little Ice Age 1850) amd should expect the Earth to warm for another approximate 30,000years. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age "
allen wrote on Oct 16, 2007 2:05 PM:
" robert; H3 and it's use as a power source was discovered in the early 1970's. it had to be dropped because the earth contains only small amounts of H3. years later H3 was discovered in moon rocks. several countries are trying to beat us to the moon to harvest the H3. this has caused competition and projected dates are now moved sooner. try to watch "moon for sale" on the science channel. it will give you a lot more information.
"
allen wrote on Oct 16, 2007 1:32 PM:
" npe; i come from a family of scientists and proving global warming cannot be done in a simple message post. if you cannot see the signs now before your eyes; you wouldn't understand the scientific approach. however i will give you some proof that even grade school children understand. first; the earth moves around the sun in an eliptical orbit. this means that some periods leave the earth closer to the sun causing warming and when in the back part of our orbit; cooling. our current orbit is moving AWAY from the sun and we should be moving into a cooling trend. HOWEVER; WE ARE WARMING. this proves that the earth is not following its normal warming/cooling cycle. the fact that many coastal towns and entire islands are evacuating rising sea levels proves that melt water is causing the seas to rise. expiditions to our ice sources show increased melting. each year an estimate of melting is made and the following year that estimate is changed. discoveries like meltwater seeping down the cracks in greenland is lubricating the base of the glacier causing it to fall into the sea faster than expected. however; in antartica; the meltwater is seeping into the cracks and refreezing. this then expands breaking the ice into smaller pieces. in 2005; nasa watched 1250 sq miles of ice dissapear. antartica's ice is melting from under the ice. thus the melting cannot be seen by the naked eye. however; ice core samples show the depth of the ice proving the melting. you can also use comparison if that helps you. in 2000 our ice cover was the size of the US. in 2005 the ice cover was the size of the US WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER.
if that isn't enough information; just let me know. "
npe wrote on Oct 16, 2007 12:42 PM:
" Allen, get real show me true signs of global warming with out the media hipe and real studies from past weather. "
Robert Avery wrote on Oct 16, 2007 6:12 AM:
" So... when is He3 going to be feasible? A quick search revealed a staggering 50 years or so. This ought to be interesting in the mean time. "
Randal wrote on Oct 14, 2007 9:13 AM:
" I'm still skeptical about the He3, but I don't have anything to say against it. The other advantage to Nuclear power is there could be dedicated Nuclear plants to generate Hydrogen for fuel. Instead of gasoline refineries we would have Hydrogen plants. I haven't done the calculations, but I am sure it would take Terawatts of electricity to generate enough Hydrogen to completely replace our Fossil Fuels and with today's technology the only way to get that kind of power with out fossil fuels is with nuclear. Always a balance. Between really dense solid waste that would take hundreds of years of storage vs. atmospheric emissions that take hundreds of years for nature to adjust to.... "
allen wrote on Oct 13, 2007 10:34 AM:
" people are building nukes in anticipation of the helium3 supposedly coming. i can't believe there's investors building a coal fired plant though. i'm interested in how heavy water is recycled. i thought the best use for nuclear waste was dirty bombs. "
Randal wrote on Oct 13, 2007 6:43 AM:
" No Nukes - I agree that Nuclear was heavily substidized when they were being built, and even today investors aren't willing to put the capital in which surprises me really. There are a lot of countries building reactors with new designs and for less (more you build lower the cost). Besides perception about Nuclear's danger (every major nuclear accident in the US was caused by people interrupting the computers that were taking care of minor problems) is American policy not to re-process uranium. If we were to re-process our nuclear fuel it would be the same as recycling it and waste would be significantly reduced. Most countries do this (most notably France and Japan) because it is economical, efficient and reduces waste material. The cycle couldn't continue forever but with the reprocessing and breeder type reactors nuclear waste could be re-processed for new nuclear power plants as they are built (as our ever increasing energy demand continues) further re-using waste. But Nuclear has a bad PR here and our policy to not recycle nuclear waste partially hold it back. "
No Nukes wrote on Oct 12, 2007 8:24 PM:
" In regards to the nuclear solution, any talk about it being "cheap" is dishonest, or at the very least, uninformed. WE the taxpayers of this country have heavily subsidzed nuclear energy, though to be fair, not as much as fossil fuels (they always had better lobbyist). The real kicker with nuclear, besides the obvious wste issue, is the Price Anderson Act. The act states that the federal governemnt shall be responsible for any disposal transportation or clean-up due to a disaterous reactor meltdown. WE the taxpayers are responsible for the tens of millions of dollars spent on mitigation. The nuclear lobby is pressing hard to reinvigorate a dying industry at the taxpayer's expense, taking our country down a disasterous path. Wall Street WILL NOT support nuclear, which is why they ask US for the handout. "
allen wrote on Oct 12, 2007 2:31 PM:
" kent; you seem to have forgotten nuclear waste which has a half life of 500 years. the problem with nuclear energy IS the waste.
nevada has exploded with people immigrating to the state. mostly because of it's solar capabilities. the places most people expect to bury the waste is now inhabited by GREEN COMMUNITIES. look in the back of say MOTHER EARTH NEWS and you will find ads for land in these communities. areas where you never thought people could live are now populated because of solar power. next; we have a growing population worldwide thus the need for land has risen. land in open range has gone from under $500/acre 10 years ago now sells for over $1000/acre. in my valley; there is only 2 privately held parcels. the rest is blm and national forest.
finally; if we can't depend on the sun or wind; we are dead. without the sun; the earth is a frozen ball of rock floating in the universe. without the wind; we dry up because the wind brings our rain and water is life.
my last point is global warming. many areas are evacuating because of rising sea levels. as our ice melts those levels will rise. by the year 2050; new york city is expected to look like venice. 2/3 of the earths population lives near water which will need to be evacuated. this means the need for land will increase.
alternative energy means ANOTHER OPTION. just as alternative cancer treatment means an alternative to chemo. everyone here knows i've been 100% solar and i know it's the only option. think about it next time you're sitting in the dark because of a power failure. "
Rick Spilsbury wrote on Oct 11, 2007 12:13 AM:
" One more thing: Ausra executives claim that their thermal solar generators will be providing baseline power. This means they will be providing power at night, when the sun is down. For more information;
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/02/2048420.htm?section=world "
kent beuchert wrote on Oct 10, 2007 4:06 PM:
" Nevada will certainly switch to nuclear for their future plants, as 32 other states have done. Solar is an alternative energy, after all, and that means that it can't always be depdended upon, and can't match the low cost of nuclear as a base load generator - it teams up well with nuclear , however, as mid and peak load generating system. I have no doubt that solar thermal will destroy the market for wind and photovoltaic solar, two non-dispatchable , highly priced producers whose "time in the sun" was awfully brief, as it turns out. Well, that's technology for you.
I see solar thermal, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, and perhaps dispatchable wave as the onlywinners in the energy gaem. It's obvious that solar thermal's capacity is so huge that it will occupy a major place, along with nuclear, which will provide 30% of U.S. power in about 5 years when the new plants come online. Hydro will remain at 7%. I see the route to carbon-free electricity as very clear
since Ausra and Solel and solar thermal entered the picture on a commercial basis. "
allen wrote on Oct 10, 2007 3:11 PM:
" so california is using nevada land to produce clean; renewable energy and nevada is building coal fired power plants. does this make sense to anyone?
"
Randal wrote on Oct 10, 2007 2:30 PM:
" Hope it all goes well. I bet most will be designed along those lines. The southwest US has great potential for Solar. "
John Jay wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:15 AM:
" In the flurry to pat these companies on the back, everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that regarding the Florida solar project, FPL says
"Construction on the Florida power plant is scheduled to begin in 2008, with initial capacity of 10 megawatts. If it meets expectations, it will be followed within three years by the remaining 290 megawatts, said Mayco Villafana, ...."
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/27/State/FPL_unveils_plans_for.shtml.
That means they have only committed to 10 MW and nowhere near $1.5B.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves patting any company on the back for "promises."
"
