Report: Government-backed solar power costs 161 percent more than coal power
The Obama administration heaped praise on the world's largest solar thermal power facility, which began sending energy to customers in California on Thursday.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Free Republic.
#1 Feb 16, 2014
"“Do we really need to have these giant plants first, or is it better to generate solar power on people’s roofs, the place it’s going to be used?” asked Michael Connor, California director of the Western Watershed Project."
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/13/report-gove... ;
I have seen articles that say the project can power anywhere from 100,000 to 140,000 homes on average. Since the project doesn't have any type of heat storage, it cannot be used as a spinning power source. It cannot create energy at night or when it is a cloudy day. So the technology is available to make it a spinning source of power, but since it is claimed to be less cost effective than coal, I doubt heat storage will ever be added. The same with the upcoming Palen project in Reverside county. A more efficient method of powering 140,000 homes would be to put a 3 KW peak solar PV system on 140,000 homes. It is more efficient and the power is generated where it is used.
Add your comments below
|Stanley Council to decide fate of proposed biof...||Sat||Caped Crusader||1|
|Prepare for power cuts with solar energy||Fri||Solarman||1|
|Pro-Con: Are eco-friendly renewables key to a n...||Fri||Solarman||1|
|Australia's biggest mining states, ACT raise is...||Apr 17||Solarman||1|
|Scientists hope new enzyme will 'eat' plastic p...||Apr 17||Solarman||1|
|Aussie 'pop-up' solar could bring back power wh...||Apr 16||Solarman||1|
|Hicks column: Utilities' solar power-play shoul...||Apr 15||Solarman||1|
Find what you want!
Search Alternative Energy Forum Now
Copyright © 2018 Topix LLC