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
|XsunX Secures Two Large Commercial Solar Projects||4 hr||karland||1|
|Carport Will Also Generate Power For CU (Jul '11)||5 hr||karland||3|
|Australian scientists announce solar energy bre...||20 hr||I like Chinese||116|
|Pros And Cons Of Solar Energy||Sun||Solarman||1|
|Tech Giants Fight Renewable Energy Freeze In No...||Sun||Solarman||1|
|Investors turning away from green energy||Sun||Solarman||1|
|Capstone commissions Goulais Bay wind farm||Sat||community||1|
Find what you want!
Search Alternative Energy Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC