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
|Floridians with Solar Inverters had Electricity...||4 hr||Moe||11|
|Trade panel says low-cost solar imports hurt US...||7 hr||Dee Dee Dee||10|
|Student power brings solar power to Iroquois... (Apr '10)||Sat||why Bateman closing||4|
|Florida residents prohibited from using solar e...||Fri||Solarman||1|
|Indiana governor signs bill aimed at dimming so...||Sep 22||nono||2|
|Army, Georgia Power build 250-acre solar energy... (Dec '16)||Sep 17||Jamesmatheson||3|
|Smart internet applications to bolster renewabl...||Sep 17||Solarman||1|
Find what you want!
Search Solar Energy Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC