California Built the World's Largest Solar Power Tower Plant. Now It May Close (latimes.com) 30
"Sometimes, government makes a bad bet..." writes the Los Angeles Times. Opening in 2014, the Ivanpah concentrated solar plant "quickly became known as an expensive, bird-killing eyesore."
Assuming that state officials sign off — which they most likely will, because the deal will lead to lower bills for PG&E customers — two of the three towers will shut down come 2026. Ivanpah's owners haven't paid off the project's $1.6-billion federal loan, and it's unclear whether they'll be able to do so. Houston-based NRG Energy, which operates Ivanpah and is a co-owner with Kelvin Energy and Google, said that federal officials took part in the negotiations to close PG&E's towers and that the closure agreement will allow the federal government "to maximize the recovery of its loans." It's possible Ivanpah's third and final tower will close, too. An Edison spokesperson told me the utility is in "ongoing discussions" with the project's owners and the federal government over ending the utility's contract.
It might be tempting to conclude government should stop placing bets and just let the market decide. But if it weren't for taxpayers dollars, large-scale solar farms, which in 2023 produced 17% of California's power, might never have matured into low-cost, reliable electricity sources capable of displacing planet-warming fossil fuels. More than a decade ago, federal loans helped finance some of the nation's first big solar-panel farms.
Not every government investment will be a winner. Renewable energy critics still raise the specter of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after receiving a $535-million federal loan. But on the whole, clean power investments have worked out. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that as of Dec. 31, it had disbursed $40.5 billion in loans. Of that amount, $15.2 billion had already been repaid. The federal government was on the hook for $1.03 billion in estimated losses but had reaped $5.6 billion in interest.
The article notes recent U.S. energy-related loans to a lithium mine in Nevada (close to $1 billion) and $15 billion to expand hydropower, upgrade power lines, and add batteries. Some of the loans won't get paid back "If federal officials are doing their jobs well," the article adds. "That's the risk inherent to betting on early-stage technologies." About the Ivanpah solar towers, they write "Maybe they never should have been built. They're too expensive, they don't work right, they kill too many birds... It's good that their time is coming to an end. But we should take inspiration from them, too: Don't get complacent. Keep trying new things."
PG&E says their objective at the time was partly to "support new technologies," with one senior director of commercial procurement noting "It's not clear in the early stages what technologies will work best and be most affordable for customers. Solar photovoltaic panels and battery energy storage were once unaffordable at large scale." But today they've calculated that ending their power agreements with Ivanpah would cost customers "substantially less." And once deactivated, Ivanpah's units "will be decommissioned, providing an opportunity for the site to potentially be repurposed for renewable PV energy production," NRG said in a statement.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes that instead the 3,500-acre, 386-megawatt concentrated thermal power plant used a much older technology, "a system of mirrors to reflect sunlight and generate thermal energy, which is then concentrated to power a steam engine." Throughout the day, 350,000 computer-controlled mirrors track the sunlight and reflect it onto boilers atop 459-foot towers to generate AC. Nowadays, photovoltaic solar has surpassed concentrated solar power and become the dominant choice for renewable, clean energy, being more cost effective and flexible... So many birds have been victims of the plant's concentrated sun rays that workers referred to them as "streamers," for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair. When federal wildlife investigators visited the plant around 10 years ago, they reported an average of one "streamer" every two minutes.
"Meanwhile, environmentalists continue to blame the Mojave Desert plant for killing thousands of birds and tortoises," reports the Associated Press. And a Sierra Club campaign organizer also says several rare plant species were destroyed during the plant's construction. "While the Sierra Club strongly supports innovative clean energy solutions and recognizes the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels, Ivanpah demonstrated that not all renewable technologies are created equal."
It might be tempting to conclude government should stop placing bets and just let the market decide. But if it weren't for taxpayers dollars, large-scale solar farms, which in 2023 produced 17% of California's power, might never have matured into low-cost, reliable electricity sources capable of displacing planet-warming fossil fuels. More than a decade ago, federal loans helped finance some of the nation's first big solar-panel farms.
Not every government investment will be a winner. Renewable energy critics still raise the specter of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer that filed for bankruptcy in 2011 after receiving a $535-million federal loan. But on the whole, clean power investments have worked out. The U.S. Department of Energy reported that as of Dec. 31, it had disbursed $40.5 billion in loans. Of that amount, $15.2 billion had already been repaid. The federal government was on the hook for $1.03 billion in estimated losses but had reaped $5.6 billion in interest.
The article notes recent U.S. energy-related loans to a lithium mine in Nevada (close to $1 billion) and $15 billion to expand hydropower, upgrade power lines, and add batteries. Some of the loans won't get paid back "If federal officials are doing their jobs well," the article adds. "That's the risk inherent to betting on early-stage technologies." About the Ivanpah solar towers, they write "Maybe they never should have been built. They're too expensive, they don't work right, they kill too many birds... It's good that their time is coming to an end. But we should take inspiration from them, too: Don't get complacent. Keep trying new things."
PG&E says their objective at the time was partly to "support new technologies," with one senior director of commercial procurement noting "It's not clear in the early stages what technologies will work best and be most affordable for customers. Solar photovoltaic panels and battery energy storage were once unaffordable at large scale." But today they've calculated that ending their power agreements with Ivanpah would cost customers "substantially less." And once deactivated, Ivanpah's units "will be decommissioned, providing an opportunity for the site to potentially be repurposed for renewable PV energy production," NRG said in a statement.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes that instead the 3,500-acre, 386-megawatt concentrated thermal power plant used a much older technology, "a system of mirrors to reflect sunlight and generate thermal energy, which is then concentrated to power a steam engine." Throughout the day, 350,000 computer-controlled mirrors track the sunlight and reflect it onto boilers atop 459-foot towers to generate AC. Nowadays, photovoltaic solar has surpassed concentrated solar power and become the dominant choice for renewable, clean energy, being more cost effective and flexible... So many birds have been victims of the plant's concentrated sun rays that workers referred to them as "streamers," for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair. When federal wildlife investigators visited the plant around 10 years ago, they reported an average of one "streamer" every two minutes.
"Meanwhile, environmentalists continue to blame the Mojave Desert plant for killing thousands of birds and tortoises," reports the Associated Press. And a Sierra Club campaign organizer also says several rare plant species were destroyed during the plant's construction. "While the Sierra Club strongly supports innovative clean energy solutions and recognizes the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels, Ivanpah demonstrated that not all renewable technologies are created equal."
Drove past these a few times heading to Vegas (Score:4, Informative)
and every time I drive past it looks almost like water but it's wrong and then you figure out what it is. Very interesting site. I didn't realize it wasn't a bunch of PV panels until I had read an article recently talking about how the place worked. Those are mirrors directing sunlight to heat a boiler on top of a tower, which then generates steam to drive a turbine. I had no idea that was what was going on there. The tech works but is just a bit to pricey compared to today's solar panels.
Wonder how long it will take to decommission it all.
Re: (Score:2)
It is an intermediary step. The plus side, if done right, is that you can do thermal storage pretty cheaply, and that was a huge factor when these were designed some 50 years (?) ago. By now battery tech and other non-integrated storage has gotten a lot cheaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Reflected thermal solar was always a bad bet given how much more efficiency we actually expected to be able to get out of PV. These days you can just build fixed PV farms with no trackers and it's a lot cheaper to maintain and operate and not much more expensive to build, if at all. Fixed-rack PV solar with microinverters is just beautifully reliable.
On the other hand, while modern PV panels are fairly clean and easy to recycle, this should be even easier as it's mostly just a bunch of metal, and the salts
Re: (Score:2)
In the overall cradle to grave sense, these probably have a comparatively small cleanup or replacement cost. They are essentially nothing fancy. Wholesale commodity components most of the way.
I'm thinking maybe death rays that can be pointed towards specific points in the sky should mainly be used for war, and not just left on every day all year long.
PV is killing thermal solar (Score:5, Informative)
The falling cost of photo-voltaic solar is killing thermal solar.
It's cheaper to shut down Ivanpah and replace it with PV than to continue maintaining it.
The same thing is happening to solar thermal in Spain.
Re:PV is killing thermal solar (Score:4, Interesting)
Ivanpah was also supposedly a copied design from a similar, profitable (?) facility in Israel. Lots more background information here https://www.powermag.com/ivanp... [powermag.com].
Re: (Score:2)
a technically complex photovoltaic system
For maintenance, PV panels are dead-simple.
I have PV on my roof, and I haven't gone up there to even look at them in years.
Re: (Score:2)
Grid scale PV still have adjusters for the PV panels. But they lack the pumps and the tower and it's easier to aim the panels for maximum power than to adjust mirrors to aim at the right spot.
The huge reason to go with heliostats though - base load pow
Re: (Score:2)
And there is nothing wrong with that. This tech is not in an end-stage. Thermal solar has one primary advantage: Pretty cheap power storage. Whether that will bring it back or not depends on the evolution of other storage.
As to the specific plant at hand, looks like a case of going to production too early. These are frequent when a technology evolves.
Re: (Score:2)
Thermal solar has one primary advantage: Pretty cheap power storage.
Cheap batteries have obviated that advantage.
looks like a case of going to production too early.
Ivanpah was always intended to be a test project to find out if the technology was viable.
We have now answered that question, so in that sense, it was a success.
Re: (Score:3)
The falling cost of photo-voltaic solar is killing thermal solar.
I'd surmise that the falling cost of energy in general is killing concentrated solar thermal power.
Solar PV doesn't really compete with solar thermal since PV can be installed on a small scale while thermal cannot. I believe solar thermal is more likely competing with wind power since both require large remote land areas to be viable. I guess technically wind power is also able to be deployed on a small scale but with the small scale windmills the costs go up per unit of energy and is rarely worth the eff
Re: (Score:2)
the falling cost of energy in general is killing concentrated solar thermal power.
Energy costs may be falling globally, but not in California, where Ivanpah's output is being sold.
Solar PV doesn't really compete with solar thermal since PV can be installed on a small scale while thermal cannot.
True, but PV solar is much more cost-effective in large installations. Residential rooftop solar is politically popular but often needs subsidies.
I believe solar thermal is more likely competing with wind power
Solar + wind is better than investing in only one. Some days are sunny but not windy, and vice versa.
Re:PV is killing thermal solar (Score:4, Insightful)
Energy costs may be falling globally, but not in California, where Ivanpah's output is being sold.
If I'm understanding the article there's causality there.
Because there's a contract for California users to buy power from Ivanpah the high cost of CSP is making electricity rates higher. Break that contract and costs should come down. With that contract lost there's no more income to operate the power plant, and that means having it shut down and dismantled.
Re:Trump is killing everything (Score:4, Interesting)
It's clean energy so Trump will make sure it closes.
The closure has nothing to do with Trump.
Ivanpah has been bleeding cash for a long time.
Ivanpah received Federal loan guarantees in 2011, but that money is long gone.
Re: Trump is killing everything (Score:1)
Will lead to lower bills... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it might be in relative terms: i.e. the rate of growth of the bills will be slightly less.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm under the impression that it's not uncommon for renewable energy plants like this to be built with some guarantee from the power company to buy their power. The terms of the agreement may be a fixed rate with inflation adjustments, or perhaps based on the operating costs. Whatever the details are, it sounds like PG&E was under contract to buy the power from this plant at what are now above-market rates, so shutting it down will lower the average cost of electricity. Hence, power bills going forwa
Thermal provides easier energy storage (Score:4, Interesting)
At the moment solar thermal doesn't seem cost competitive with photovoltaic but its possible that could change. As solar produces an increasing fraction of total electrical power, the relative cost of evening / nighttime power vs daytime power is likely to increase. Its probably less expensive to add large scale thermal storage to thermal power plants, than to add batteries to photovoltaic plants, so we could see this technology become economically viable again.
Re: (Score:3)
At the moment solar thermal doesn't seem cost competitive with photovoltaic but its possible that could change.
I doubt it because CSP has so many moving parts. Each mirror needs to track the sun precisely on 2-axes for the system to work while a PV system works well enough with a stationary panel. There's sun tracking PV which can improve efficiency some but the gain on 1 axis vs. 2-axes is so small that it's rare to see a 2-axes PV system anywhere. The reduced mechanical complexity means lower install and maintenance costs. I've seen theoretical static mirror designs that could replace tracking mirrors for CSP
'Investor? Just put your money in that hole...' (Score:1)
Worked out for who? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Since a while renewable is cheaper than burning fossils, the remaining problem is to get 24/7/365 renewables.
These salt storage plants were part of the answer until batteries got more affordable.
Idiots do not understand science (Score:4, Insightful)
Science is (simplified) the process of expirementation.
Step
1) Create a Hypothesis (not theory).
2) Test Hypothesis with an Experiment.
3) Declare new Theory (fact) that it either a) works or b) does not work.
4) Repeat.
Negative results, i.e. failures are PART of the process, in fact they are almost a requirement.
This is why government pays for experiments rather than corporations that do not want to fail.
Negative results are GOOD for the system. We need them.
Stop trying to end science by pointing to 'failed' experiments. This is a 'fail fast' mentality that is needed for successes.