Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Monday, Aug. 18, 2008 | 2:07 a.m.
Nevada is moving on renewable energy like a car whose gear is in drive but whose gas pedal is not being pushed. The potential is hardly being tapped.
Even at its current pace, though, the state has two sizable solar projects in operation and more are being planned.
Also, a 130,000-square-foot plant for manufacturing components for solar thermal power systems was opened last month in Las Vegas by Ausra Inc. And 15 geothermal plants are operating in Nevada, with 40 more in development stages.
But these and other projects, such as studies under way to calculate Nevada’s substantial potential for wind power, represent barely a fraction of what the state could be accomplishing with renewable energy.
We believe that an event this week at UNLV — the National Clean Energy Summit — could be a turning point for Nevada. Co-hosts are the university, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
In addition to Reid and UNLV President David Ashley, speakers will include former President Clinton, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, oil man and wind farmer T. Boone Pickens and numerous regional, state and local leaders in the political, utility, scientific and business sectors.
We agree with David Comarow, guest author of Thursday’s Where I Stand column in this newspaper, that the conference is a good sign that Nevada may now be seeing the value of investing on a large scale in its long-term energy future.
He is semiretired now, but in 1976 Comarow was instrumental in setting up a solar energy program at the College of Southern Nevada. In Thursday’s column he wrote, “It is time for our state, in partnership with the federal government and private industry, to build the largest solar energy system in the world.”
Nevada’s potential in the area of renewable energy is so vast it could conceivably power the whole country — and create thousands of jobs here in the process. Let’s get moving.
Solar can help some but there is a limit to it.
Most countries are only targeting 20% of energy from solar and wind.
The reason why is that solar and wind are not 24/7 reliable sources of energy.
For each mega-watt of potential solar and wind energy, one must have a stand-by mega-watt of coal, nuclear or natural gas energy. The power companies cannot cross their fingers and hope that sun will shine or the wind will blow. Storing energy is very expensive and can only do so much.
Also, solar and wind are usually in remote areas. The high power transmission lines are very expensive to build to reach them.
Solar and wind could help reduce fuel cost by not running coal, nuclear and natural gas plants at full power during the peak demand months.
In the west, peak demand is during the summer. The wind does not blow as much during the summer in Nevada. Solar is better renewable than wind for Nevada for this reason.
After 20% of power needs, solar and wind power sources are losers financially because of the need to have redundant standby reliable energy sources of coal, natural gas and nuclear.
"crossing your fingers" that the solar plans can or will produce consistently available power is a pipe dream.
Cloud, rain, night etc cut production intermittently = and as power can't be stored or saved per se, this solar plan really does need back-up on an ongoing basis.
Wind, the same.
Liberals are depending on which way the wind blows for our power supply.
Kind of a "wind and a prayer" plan for America's energy needs! All the while, libs want to kill off what is plentiful, available and consistently reliable.
That's "lib" for 'ya!!
Continuously available solar is not a pipe dream.
MIT has done it using water-splitting tech. Basically it is artificial photosynthesis.
I guess you do not read much into green power?
You also don't know about thermal salts or pumped storage? They are already in use and storing excess electricity today.
If you don't even know about such basic technology, why would anyone trust what you have to say?
The technology to leave coal and gas power is quickly maturing. Barack Obama's plan to heavily invest in green technology will only hasten it's takeover.
People always fear what they do not understand. I think that is a sign of a small mind.
All you talk about is possible future technology or current very expensive storage solutions.
If it was so easy and cheap then they would already have energy storage solutions running at the current solar systems in Nevada. They do not.
Nor are they planning to have them.
Nor are your pals Reid or Obama pushing for them either.
They are too expensive.
I am OK with the government throwing money into R & D. They already throw money around at everything else.
Even if you have an cost effective storage solution it still will have a limit.
Even Obama's plan that does not call more than a 20% mix of solar and wind. Most countries only are pushing for 20%, too.
I guess you think Reid, Obama and the rest of the world have small minds, too. You must have the "I am God and Know it all" complex that Obama seems to have.
You, greenies, gave us this gas crises by locking up trillions of gas and oil.
You, greenies, will give us a electrical energy crisis if you keep pushing pipe dreams as solutions.
MIT's water-splitting experiments are in line with the 10-20 year timeframe to even be proven or not in the volumes needed for ANY KIND of national power generation. Pimping this as any near-term answer is indicative of typical of lib's knee-jerk in the march to starve we all in energy.
Water-splitting, good one?? Liberally new verbiage, sounds high-tech - while hiding behind the falseness of alts' being anywhere near available to take over for nat-gas and oil - as you pimp here.
Make that 30-40 years, imo!
Or, consider it in line with the 10-year timeframe liberals always couch their en-viral-MENTALISM in disastrous terms - when selling unproven, undeveloped lib-political-enviral ideas as functional and - more importantly - consistent.
A "wind and a prayer - with a dollop of hope": allow me to change my opinion of your answer.
Green power is WAY too small and too unreliable to change over from oil-natural gas-based power. Fact!
75 years imo, at a snail's pace = the (maybe) takeover of alts. These days and in the medium-term, if at all, lib's "green" is like shooting a bb-gun at a freight train.
People see liberal snake-oil pipe-DREAMS as the lies they are. Small-minds reside in this liberal, nation-choking political realm.
It is funny that you say power can't be stored, when it's happening today with thermal salts and pumped storage.
It shows how little you know about alternative energy.
It will only get more efficient with better systems, such as MIT's hydrogen storage systems, and cheaper, too.
It is always the naysayers who fear progress.
Jfnance32, you have said many untrue things on this website that many people have called you out on. You say another one here. "If it was so easy and cheap then they would already have energy storage solutions running at the current solar systems in Nevada. They do not."
That is absolutely false. This is why so many people call you out. You say many, many untrue statements.
NV Solar One uses molten salt to store excess energy as heat, which is then used to enhance energy production during downtime or overnight. :http://techrepublic-cnet.com.com/Full+steam+ahead+for+Nevada+solar+project/2100-11392_3-6166113.html
NVMakz, you say 75 years without a shred of proof or any scientist backing up your claims. That is not new, either.
Nocera, the scientist behind the water splitting technology, predicts a timeframe of 10 years for consumer use.
I do not know why so many people are willing to cling to old technology that pollutes the environment. Alternatives are out there, and those people who cling to the past will be left in the dust.
Learn to read.
I did not say that they can not store energy.
I said it was very expensive.
It if was cheap then Nevada would have had it and would be planning to buy them.
Neither of that is happening.
Even your buddies Reid and Obama do not push for the current storage systems because they are so expensive.
I am OK with putting cash into R & D to make it cheaper.
But is probaly decades away.
I am sure that you want solar 100% even it cost the consumer an arm and a leg because like most Democrats you do not care about cost.
If you love solar so much go out and buy a $50,000 PV unit for your house and then buy another $125,000 energy storage unit go with it.
Also, you should read your own source article.
It agrees that solar with storage energy systems are very expensive.
I guess you are OK with your power bill going by up over 240%.
"Solar thermal plants aren't cheap. The construction tab for building Solar One will likely run about $250 million, said Cohen. The power generated by the plant, minus any subsidies, may not get to parity with electricity generated from conventional plants until around 2020, added Nikolaus Benz, a development manager for Schott. Solar thermal electricity, according to statistics from Schott's publications, will cost around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour in the U.S. Residents of Las Vegas now pay around 7 cents a kilowatt hour."
"It is funny that you say power can't be stored, when it's happening today with thermal salts and pumped storage.
It shows how little you know about alternative energy.'
I said "per se". This indicates there IS advancement in alts, of which i applaud vigorously.
Salts and pumped storage etc are not close to being represented as an "alternative" by anyone except you here - IN THE VOLUMES NEEDED to be taken seriously in this regard.
xxxxxxxxxx
"It will only get more efficient with better systems, such as MIT's hydrogen storage systems, and cheaper, too.
It is always the nay-sayers who fear progress."
I never said they wouldn't! I applaud alts, but have more realistic views on the transition. So, you're off the timeframes and on to the smallness these tech-babies represent today and in the near-term. Thanks!
xxxxx
"75 years":
That's my opinion. Bite me! I have seen no one who can put a number on it - at all. There are too many unknowns - including the loss of financial/economic viability as the liberal chokes we all into higher prices and greater financial burdens - THEN - try to pay for alt research. OH, that's right, Barry will tax us more to pay for it - tying down our economy more and more........
YOU provide evidence and lay-out YOUR transition plan! Prove me wrong! Without
What is YOUR plan, and how long will it take? WHY??
What is YOUR mixture and when can it replace the MASSIVE and growing energy needs of America?
Alternatives are 75 years away, in my opinion, from being what rabid, knee-jerk lead-helmet en-viral-MENTALISTS can and will replace what we already have. My basis is, has and will be replacing VOLUMES - and growth rates included = the essential argument is the transition timing.
Make the counter? Intrigue me?
In VOLUMES!
xxxx
"You also don't know about thermal salts or pumped storage? They are already in use and storing excess electricity today."
Don't waste my time telling me what I know to pimp-along your argument! A hollow and false argument tactic, and sad on-line gruel!
I'll tell you what I know. So far, so good!
I identified your false claim, jfnance32.
You wrote that storage systems are not in use in Nevada today. I proved you wrong.
Now you continue lying and say you meant it was expensive. Anyone who can read can see what you wrote. I even quoted you.
This is just another in a long line of falsehoods you have written on this website.
NVMakz, I would take you more seriously if you stopped playing the "liberal blame game" card. Blah blah "lib" this and that weakens your argument. Petty insults and name calling? That's weak.
If you say you "believe" it will take 75 years, that isn't even a hypothesis, it's a wild guess based on zero facts which you present as the answer. Tell me, what do you do for a living? Do you work in the field of alternative energy? If not, then your opinion is meaningless without some sort of facts supporting it.
I'm not going to make a wild guess. I don't need to.
My point is that the naysayers, jfnance32 and NVMakz are so quick to claim we'll need to use coal and oil for decades, maybe even centuries based on NO FACTS. They are wild guesses, and with factually-challeneged arguements from jfnance32, not even well-reasoned guesses at that!
75 years? Based on what? Based on what information? A crazy guess! Not based on forecasted growth, not based on forecasted need, not based on emerging technologies. Just a wild guess!
Spare us the fact-less pontifications! I could get more accurate guesses from Miss Cleo!
So, in the absence of hard facts - which you can not provide as well for when we'll be off oil/gas - I represent what IS working, available, consistent, reliable, economically superior and a myriad of other advantages against the vapors and mini-advancements and MORE unknown timeframe to be able to ANSWER THE QUESTION of when YOUR side will take over?
You represent, in the anti-oil and gas side of this == what is unknown, unavailable, inconsistent, unreliable, experimental, economically inferior in the argument of gagging and choking oil and gas in this time and the near future. It is now undeniable that even as the lib says that it'll be 10 years for oil -- while "nance" gives your own references as 12 years until possible availability - THEN, years more for full integration into American society.
This difference is undeniable and clear as crystal.
I know your running away from what I "left" to you as a knockout - was what you had to do. You proved my point for me, thanks! Don't talk to me about "crazy guess" when you can't bring yourself to the table in the first place!
What I want to help financially / economically / national security to transition to MORE and better alts is in place and functioning.
What you represent is not and will not be in place to replace the VOLUMES of energy that we'll need - for many, many decades.
Miss Cleo seems a LOT more willing to make her opinions known than you and your side seems to be. I don't see her as hiding!
ksand is saying that solar with energy storage systems are not expensive but his own article says that Solar One would increase your power bill by 240%.
ksand needs to read his our sources before citing them.
It is extreme arrogance to make a wild guess with no facts and then present it as some sort of proof of your own argument.
You are right, I am not arrogant.
I chose not to make a crazy guess based on nothing.
75 years? Why? I see you cannot support your own beliefs. They do not reside in fact, just blind speculation.
In the absence of hard facts, you provide nothing. You provide a wild guess based, by your own admission, on "the absence of hard facts."
In other words, your opinion really doesn't mean anything at all in this case.
You say you want to transition, but the republicans have stalled for decades on green tech. Given the opportunity to heavily increase funding for alternative energy sources, the republican-led Congress did little to nothing. Then you criticize the "libs" who have worked for decades to provide such funding.
I think your arguements are what people call bloviating.
Jfnance32, I'm tired of your lies. I never said solar is not expensive. You keep lying and lying, and people keep proving you wrong. I am sorry that you have to lie to attempt to prove your point.
You called me a lair when I said solar power combined with storage energy system was very expensive.
So called yourself a lair now.
I am not a "lair." LOL!
You did not say that solar and storage was expensive. You said they "do not" have storage systems "nor are they planning to have them."
You wrote:
"If it was so easy and cheap then they would already have energy storage solutions running at the current solar systems in Nevada. They do not. Nor are they planning to have them."
You argued that they do not have storage systems, nor are they planning to have them. Those are YOUR WORDS.
I referenced an article which said:
"Sunlight heats the oil to 400 degrees Celsius (about 750 degrees Fahrenheit). The oil gets transferred to a heat exchanger where it makes steam, which then cranks a turbine to produce electricity. If the heat can't be used right away, it gets transferred to vats of molten salt which retain the heat for later use."
The vats of molten salt is a storage system. Thus, they have and plan to have storage systems.
Here is another article which proves your allegation as false: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/scienc...
What you said was not true.
Then you make up something that I never said. I never said it was not expensive. If I did, quote me saying so. You cannot.
You have a documented history of making up stuff on this website. I have read others who call you out on it, and I won't let you make up lies about me or what I've said.
At least now, you do agree that current solar systems combined with energy storage systems are very expensive.
If you want to throw around the liar label then go right ahead.
Now you cower away? Why don't you quote me? Because you can't!
"ksand is saying that solar with energy storage systems are not expensive"
Those are YOUR WORDS. That is YOUR ACCUSATION. Where did I say that? Quote me.
If you can't quote me saying that, then you admit that you are lying.
You can't even apologize for lying about my statement!
This is the logic of the right wing. Lie about your opponents position. And people wonder why the republican brand is in the toilet?
Come on, jfnance32. Either prove that's what I said, or admit you lied.
At least now, you do agree that current solar systems combined with energy storage systems are very expensive.
LOL, watch Nance run!
Run, Nance, run!
Exactly what I thought.
Jfnance32 wrote: "ksand is saying that solar with energy storage systems are not expensive"
And when challenged to back up that with any evidence whatsoever, he failed.
Just like he failed when he said storage systems were not being used with solar.
Just like he failed when he said the Democrats controlled congress in 1998.
Just like he failed when he said Obama wants to put 150 million plug in hybrids cars on the road.
So you admit I never said anything like that?
I thought so!
The old right wing tactic of lying about your opponent's position laid bare for all to see!
Storage for solar is experiencing two rapid developments.
First the price of storage is coming down rapidly.
Second, the developments of new technologies, similar to the developments at MIT, only bode well for solar and other green energy technologies.
It is clear those technologies will enable green energy to break the 20% source threshold, sooner than any of us thought.
I am glad that both of you agree the current solar systems combined with energy storage system is very expensive.
Ksand's article said the solar one was 240% more expensive then current energy cost.
If the price of solar combined with energy storage gets near current energy cost then that will be a great day.
But is not here and not now.
Pipe dreams are OK to believe in but even people like Obama are not selling more 20% solar/wind use. At least he has brain unlike others that believe that current technology can do more than 20% cost effectively.
Jfnance 32 I will not let this go.
Admit I did not say it was inexpensive, jfnance32.
Why won't you admit you were wrong?
Why do you keep trying to change the subject?
What are you hiding from?
I won't let you change the subject. I won't run away from what I've said.
Quote me, or admit I did not say it was inexpensive, jfnance32.
Admit you lied.
Actually, I never said it was "very expensive," either.
I said the cost is coming down.
But let's not change the subject, I'm having too much fun.
Nance, where did ksand99 say that storage was not expensive?
He cited an article as his support.
In that article it stated that a brand new solar system that had its own storage system generated energy at a price that is 240% above the current price to Nevada power users.
I am OK if ksand wants withdraw his support for the article.
First, be sure to do a lot of name calling.
Keep up the good work in the name calling field!!!!
I am sure you will win an award one day in name calling.
I can see it now, "theBS won the Best Name Caller Oscar".
Nance, it's clear you just won't admit you were wrong.
You said storage for solar wasn't being used and wasn't planned on being used, and ksand99 blew that out of the water with facts. You then countered this obvious fallacy with "ksand is saying that solar with energy storage systems are not expensive," when he quoted the article that gave you the price.
If you can read, you'll see ksand99 never said that. This is sad.
When did I call you a name?
"ksand is saying that solar with energy storage systems are not expensive"
Where did I say that, jfnance32?
Don't change the subject.
Please quote me.
The other thread you used the word, liar.
Current solar system combined with current solar storage systems are expensive.
That is a fact.
If you guys want to "believe" differently then go right ahead.
Dude, this is unreal:
"Nance is running scared from ksand99, who is totally calling him out for lying in another comment thread."
"It's a funny read, though, because Nance just keeps repeating himself in a failed attempt to change the subject."
No, I never used that word. Thanks for playing!
"ksand is saying that solar with energy storage systems are not expensive"
Where did I say that, jfnance32? Please quote me.
Name calling is silly and stupid when you used against it fellow bloggers.
Name calling about pols or other public people is OK.
If you want to argue about statements, figures, facts and theories then that is OK.
Like you did correct me on saying there was no energy storage system in Nevada.
I was please you cited that article because it contain material that support one of my main points.
Here are my main points:
1) Solar and wind are not reliable 24/7 energy generation sources.
2) The current energy storage solutions are expensive.
3) Building transmission lines to remote solar panels and wind farms are expensive.
4) Because of the above more than 20% mix of solar and wind is not financial wise
5) Even Obama does not recommend more than a 20% mix
6) I am OK with putting Federal money into R & D of energy storage systems.
Fine, let's argue about statements.
You claimed I said solar storage wasn't expensive.
When did I say that, jfnance32?
Yup, trying to change the subject again. Not gonna work.
We need all viable energy sources. The determination of what is viable should be made by the marketplace with a little help from government to get over some of the "humps" such as those associated with getting out of the starting gate building new nuclear in US and to deal with some of the R and D costs associated with renewables and new nuclear.
Ok, you did not say solar storage was not expensive.
Then why did you lie and say that I did?
Ok, if you want to play this stupid game.
I got one for you.
You said: "It is funny that you say power can't be stored"
I never said anywhere that "power can not be stored".
So in your little silly world, you lied when you made that statement.
It is the EXACT SAME thing you are accusing me of.
Whopppppieeeeeee......wowowowowowowowow......hipppppeeeeeee
Are you happy now?
Are you done now?
Why did you LIED when you falsely said that I said, "power can't be stored"?
Why? Why? Why did you lied?
For the love of God, if you want to keep playing this silly game then go somewhere else.
Also, I think it is soooooooooooo funny that you want me to say: "Ok, you did not say solar storage was not expensive."
That sounds like you are agreeing with .....
"Current solar energy storage is expensive."
Think everyone is in favor of renewables? Not quite. I found an interesting website called www.wind-watch.org. Check it out. It's a real eye opener on how much opposition there is to wind power. One of the articles tells of plans for Lincoln County Nevada where they want to place windmills on the mountains that would supply electricity for 250,000 homes. The counties in that area are opposed to the plan because it would interfere with hunting. Until you can convince your fellow citizens projects like these are necessary, most will never see the light of day no matter how beneficial they are. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you would great opposition to most anything renewable, most of it based on BS and environmental agendas.
I'm not accusing you of something, you admitted you lied.
When I wrote: "It is funny that you say power can't be stored, when it's happening today with thermal salts and pumped storage."
That was a direct answer to: "If it was so easy and cheap then they would already have energy storage solutions running at the current solar systems in Nevada. They do not." and NVMakz's characterization of consistent power as a "pipe dream."
You said they did not have the system. I said they do, and it's possible today. NvMakz said it was a pipe dream, which it is not. "You" referred to jfnance32 and NVMakz.
You responded by claiming I said energy storage wasn't expensive, which I never said, which you finally admitted you lied about.
This isn't a silly game when you lie about what people have said. I'm all for having a discussion or debate, but when you just blatantly lie about what someone has said, that must be addressed.
LOL, apparently Nance thinks it's a "stupid game" to demand accuracy and honesty.
If you want to get back to arguing about points instead of name calling then I am ready.
Nobody has disputed this point so I will take that everybody agrees with it.
Current solar systems that store energy are very expensive.
Why should I bother trying to argue with you when you just lie about what I say?
I won't argue if you are just going to lie.
I'm not name calling, I'm saying that you absolutely misrepresented my position and then refused to admit you had lied for several hours and several comments.
I am sorry that makes you angry, but I will not allow you to lie about my words.
You misrepresent my position and lied about it.
Do I care? No.....
I explained that I was grouping your position with NVMakz and you did not dispute this. I did not mean to misinterpret your position, as that was not my intent.
To JNance
Why do you always use the "it's expensive" excuse? This following information comes from Popular Mechanics Magazine pulled off the shelf today. Or go to popularscience.com for the story.
Americans burned through more than 142 billion gallons of gasoline last year- 16 million gallons per hour. At $4 per gallon that equals $64 million dollars per hour!!! Each gallon creates 20 lbs. of CO2 as well!! If gasoline happens to hit $8 per gallon you can double the cost to $124 million dollars per hour!!!! (2 million dollars a minute to the persian gulf)
All you say is current storage for solar is expensive!! Pull you head out and admit that burning gasoline and diesel is expensive as well. Once the solar plants are paid for, the cost goes way down. Oil drilling, refining, transportation, etc. will always eat up tons of money.
You don't consider the cost structure of the current system. New technology will cost money but it must happen. Change is good! We need solar plants.
If solar was so unrealistic and expensive to make it work, why would companies spend $250 million to build them? Why are there over 250 new solar plant applications sitting at the BLM office in Las Vegas? All of these solar plants will in time be keeping your lights on!
Nevada Solar One is the third largest concentrated solar power plant in the world and generates electricity reliably and affordably for thousands of people in Nevada. ACCIONA is a leader in the clean energy revolution.
Bravo, avatar!
It is clear there is a huge expense of national
costs on using fossil fuel. That is why we
are spending billions in Iraq. Than we add
the CO2 and other cancerous particles. So we
can dig up some more oil, that is a short range solution.
Solar is getting cheaper and with investment on a large scale it gets far cheaper. You can also use
mirrors and heat turbine type systems.
We know what nuclear has real problems, including storage
and human error. Nuclear plants are subject to human error, as does the joke of Yucca Mountain.
They are also great terrorist targets. And, it's expensive. France has reactors, great.
They don't have the advantages that Nevada has.
It's a place to start. Mix the solar with other
clean sources. Nevada could do this. It wouldn't have to provide energy 100% of the time
to make a huge difference. What if it just provided
half our energy needs?
And our electricity grid currently is out dated and needs to be redesigned now.
In Israel every house must have a solar water heater, and they work out fine. They have solar powered turbines as well. It's no accident the leading research for Intel,
Oracle, Microsoft and other companies do it in Israel, the
US has been anti science and R&D.
So we can continue to subsidize the fossil fuel
industry, hiding the health costs or move ahead.
The risks of nuclear energy, even if they are small are too significant to ignore. If the water table at Yucca Mountain rose, something that has happened, we'd have a nuclear plum across the US. And transporting nuclear
wastes is too problematic. How many accidents will you allow?
Now making it political is just a stupid division. It's science and R&D. It's clean,
non toxic, getting cheaper, with very little being done.
Put some effort into it and the curve speeds up.
Hell, explain why Reagen took the solar panels off the White House? Why cancel the tax credits
for conservation? We should have been working
on this for years. Don't argue the tax loss, Regan reduced the top tax rate while spending a fortune on SDI fantasy that he put us more in debt than all the presidents prior to him.
We can't roll off into the sunset with old time
thinking and expect things not to change.