Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
By Conor Shine (contact) 
Tuesday, March 20, 2012 | 2 a.m.
President to visit Boulder City
Viewing video requires the latest version of Adobe's Flash Player
KSNV coverage of President Barack Obama stopping in Boulder City on Wednesday to talk about alternative energy, March 19, 2012.
Despite covering more than 450 acres of land near Boulder City, the panels that make up the Copper Mountain Solar plant — nearly 1 million of them — are easy to miss when driving on nearby U.S. 95.
What looks from afar like a mirage in the middle of the desert is actually one of the largest operating fields of photovoltaic solar panels in the country, and on Wednesday the nation will get a close look at the site when President Barack Obama stops there as part of a four-state tour promoting his energy policies.
Owned by California-based Sempra Generation, Copper Mountain Solar went online in 2009 and was expanded in 2010.
The Sun spoke with Sempra spokesman Scott Crider to learn more about the Copper Mountain installation President Obama will visit Wednesday:
-
Why Boulder City?
Boulder City was founded in conjunction with the Hoover Dam in the 1930s, and its current population is around 15,000 people. Its economy relies heavily on tourism. But the town has the potential to be reborn as a hub for renewable energy, Crider said, because of the large amount of available land in the city, the nearly year-round sun it receives and easy access to transmission lines from the dam.
“In other desert regions, you may have to build a long-distance transmission line to connect it to the grid. That has environmental impacts; that has increased costs,” Crider said during an October interview. “There are few places in the world that are better suited for this than Boulder City.”
So far, two commercial solar fields are up and running in Boulder City, with five more potential projects in the planning phases.
For more: The history of Hoover Dam
-
How big is it?
On Wednesday, Obama will visit Copper Mountain Solar 1, the first of three projects Sempra has planned for Boulder City. The panels at Solar 1 produce 58 megawatts of power, enough for more than 17,000 average homes, Sempra said. The recent 48-megawatt expansion of the site, completed in 2010, cost about $141 million and created 350 temporary construction jobs. However, only five people are currently employed there full time.
Sempra has already broken ground on a planned 150-megawatt solar installation, dubbed Copper Mountain Solar 2, on land adjacent to Copper Mountain Solar 1. A third project, with a potential size of 220 megawatts, is currently in the planning stages, Crider said.
-
How was it paid for?
Although financed mostly with private dollars, massive solar installations like Copper Mountain Solar still rely on government incentives to defray costs and make the upfront investment feasible, Crider said.
Copper Mountain Solar 1 received about $40 million in federal investment tax credits and another $12 million from the state of Nevada in sales and property tax abatements.
Crider said the state’s investment will be recouped over time, with the project expected to generate $35 million in tax revenue over the life of its 30-year lease.
Boulder City will collect an additional $60 million over the course of the lease for renting the land to Sempra.
“That’s a consistent source of revenue that can fund police, firefighters and city parks for decades to come,” Crider said.
For more: Questions emerge over tax breaks for solar project
-
Where does the electricity go?
Like much of the power from the Hoover Dam, electricity generated at the Copper Mountain Solar field is used to keep the lights on in communities in Southern California.
Sempra, a wholesale power generator that sells electricity to utility companies, only builds new solar installations when there is demand, Crider said. So far, that demand has come almost entirely from California, which has some of the strictest renewable-energy standards in the country, he said.
“When any developer starts a solar- or wind-power project, what they first need to do is secure a long-term contract to be able to sell that power,” Crider said.
For more: Silver State solar powering California utility customers
-
How does it produce power?
While there are several methods for converting solar energy into electricity — including using the heat to create steam that drives turbines — Sempra’s Copper Mountain Solar 1 uses photovoltaic panels, similar to those seen on homes and businesses throughout the valley.
“It essentially converts sunlight, the photons, directly into electricity,” Crider said.
The panels are arranged in a fixed grid and are more durable because there are no moving parts. If a panel breaks, Crider said, it’s as simple as swapping out the old panel and snapping in a new one.
The panels also use no water, an important consideration in the desert.
“Water scarcity is an issue,” Crider said. “We don’t require water to generate electricity … and that ultimately leads to lower prices for consumers.”
I have several questions I would like someone in the media to ask the President.
1. How much does the "Green" Copper Mountain Solar energy cost compared to one of the new "Carbon spewing" gas generators on the other side of Las Vegas? It is my understanding that it is 100's if not 1000's of percent more expensive.
2. Is it a law that we have to pay for the Copper Mountain Solar power with no way to not use it, even if it is too expensive for the average wage earner to afford? It is my understanding that state law requires the use of a certain percentage of the renewable resources no matter the cost.
3. Is the Obama administration pushing for a tax fraud called "Carbon cap and trade"? If carbon is a problem (which appears very doubtful) cap it at the individual level so that the burden is shared by all instead of trading it and thereby transferring the cost burden to the lower income individuals and creating a fraudulent situation. After all if your energy costs are less than 1% of your income who cares if it goes up a few hundred percent but if your energy costs are 20% or more of your income such as a truck operator you start to notice every little 100% increase.
4. Why is the Obama administration so intent on increasing energy costs? What good does that do for this nation?
I thought it was built with workers brought in from El Salvador on visas.
"4. Why is the Obama administration so intent on increasing energy costs? What good does that do for this nation?"
The president wants to be reelected, so natually, high energy prices will help his campaign effort ...
Oh, wait.
(Sarcasm)
Reno spent $1,000,000 on windmills and saved.....$2,785 in electrical costs.
http://www.writeonnevada.com/
I don't need to be lectured by the President about "renewable energy" sources. How about recouping the taxpayer wasted money on scams such as Solyndra.
And how big will his "carbon footprint" be just to make these speeches?
If you don't want pay more for power, turn it off or green up. Every foreclosed home in Nevada from banks that received bailout money should have been upgraded or demolished. This administration is doing nothing to diminish the wasteful use of power other than force you to pay more for energy, what's so difficult about that? I went by a new housing development just two days ago, not one solar panel, passive widow or active water heater. You can't fix stupid.
I meant to say passive window, but a passive widow might generate some free energy also.
When you calculate in the environmental damage from the mining, drilling and processing of fossils fuels... then add in the damage to the air and climate.. then add in military cost of securing trade routes and countries that export that material..the real cost of burning fossil energy is far higher than what you pay now. We have just been deferring that cost to future generations much like the debt. If we factored in those real costs you would think differently about the cost of nice clean solar energy and be complaining about the fossil fuels... accounting is a funny thing when you defer real costs and sell product below that cost! Then try to compare it truthfully 1 to1 with another product that is at real cost.
Also, I ask again! What do you people plan to do when the cheap fossil fuel game comes to an end? What is your plan for the future? Everyone likes to complain, but not a single person here has a plan for where the energy will come from in the future after fossil energy dwindles and becomes too expensive! Lights out I guess is the plan the people have!
There is a 6th thing we should know about this project. It contains massive amounts of cadmium compounds CdTe and CdS. These are toxic, carcenogens; untested and unproven for long term operation under blistering desert sun. 775,000 modules, each containing 8-9 grams of this poison (approx. 16,000 lbs. total) spread evenly over 400 acres of hot desert land, where nothing can survive for 30 years. Nothing! And where the population has no idea what's in their backyard.
What makes the owners, and President Obama's advisors, sure that these unproven for this application CdTe PV modules will be different? That the fragile thin films made of vicious killer cadmium will stay contained and harmless for the duration in the fragile glass and plastic envelope.
But what if something goes wrong? Would the Obama administration and DOE be able to sweep another disaster under the rug as they did with Solyndra's case? Any bets?
I'm all for giving less of my money to the oil companies/hostile foreign governments but I'm not ready to pay $12 for a head of lettuce. I don't think Kenworth builds an electric 18 wheeler. I also haven't recently heard anyone discuss ANWAR as another untapped source for domestic oil production.
What if? What if in 1935 they decided the Dam couldn't hold water, It was supposed to cause earthquakes, cause the ground to sink and flood the valleys below it! Listen up ABLAZE, WE ARE DEPLETING OUR NATURAL RESOURCES, If we don't get started now, Look far ahead to the future and make definite plans, we are going to miss the boat! In 1935 the Dam cost 75 million, during the great depression, and nobody had any doubts that it couldn't be done. Now it's all paid for, and it works, so stop you're complaining, gird your Loins and help with the project or get the hell out of the way...... Whiners have never done this Country any good-------------
Bimmerdude, you and most greenies need to realize that we are many decades away from any technology that will replace fossil fuel in a meaningful way. That day will come, but we should be using our own oil until we can cross over, not oil from countries that want to kill us. A tillion windmills draped with 100 trillion cheap Chinese solar panels is not going to happen.
Our future energy needs cannot be serviced by low-power density, intermittent sources like wind and solar. It may make you "feel good" but we'd be better served by cheap, abundant, natural gas until something else comes along.
All these stupid comments, even Jaun knows they cost money for green energy. the point is not the costs, but saving american lives by weaning ourselves from mid East oil. it is not always about the Almighty buck, and when you die, the money you save today does not go with you.
Wow.. now I am a greeny! Thats news to me... what exactly qualifies someone as a greeny?
That they think ahead to plan for the future?
That they understand that fossil fuels are in decline and we need to look beyond them now?
That they understand the oil industry and the costs and limits of production?
That they push for investments in R&D into new energy Technologies?
Or is it simply that they don't agree with your views and lack of knowledge about our energy future? I am still waiting to here the answer to my question....
Dont label people that you don't know...
mred,
you are mistaking this project for the Nevada 1 Concentrating Solar Plant Project. They are neighbors, but different projects.
Maybe I'm totally ignorant here--but aren't fossil fuel plants built in the US also heavily subsidized by the government?
If I read correctly it costs 141m to power about 14,000 homes, so $100,000 per home? Would it not be cheaper just to install the panels at each home for about 50k per?
It seems using onsite is better, ie, factories/ big box stores having the roofs with panels, HOA's maybe having roofs with panels,solar hot water to deliver onsite. To spend twice as much for stand alone plants seems to be wasting twice as much energy and money..
I like the idea of being able to connect to the grid nearby, it makes sense. The cost does not. I hope someone will be able to ask President Obama my question when he is there as I will not be able to attend.
Bimmerdude, answer me back with some logic will you. Most greenies just want to complain about the horrors of fossil fuels, but will not offer many solutions other than wind and solar. They also believe we can replace fossil fuels within a few years. Is this what you believe? That is a pipe dream. Don't just spout the "we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels" mantra as that is getting old. There are thousands of scientists and engineers working on new technologies as we comment. We are not there and won't be for decades, but we will get there. Let's get and use our own oil until the future technologies are here.
juansanchez, if Obama and the democrats would let oil companies here in America actually drill for oil, we wouldn't need ANY foreign oil.
Noindex, short, but sweet comment and right to the point! The liberals will not explain or offer real solutions on how to do it. Also include the environmental extremists as they do wield much power, but for the life of me I don't know how,lol And Juan, please explain how you think we can substitute the energy we need while we "wean ourselves from mid-east oil" Please tell us how, no I mean it please tell us how. Offer a plan!
Jerry and Thomas are energy experts with degrees and are working in the field of energy production right? Because if they were they would know that last year Bloomberg reported that spending for renewable energy exceeded fossil fuel spending worldwide. They would know that researchers are proposing many plans that are being implemented to move us away from heavily polluting fossil fuel production and use to clean tech. They could have looked for such plans before commenting here but why bother to educate yourself when spouting uninformed opinions is sooo much easier. They could start with these two tidbits of information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/opinio...
And:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...
And when they drive down to California on I-15 they will see this at Ivanpah:
http://ivanpahsolar.com/
Comment removed by moderator. - -
Comment removed by moderator. - -
From my link:
"When policy debates go global and rely on information from a foreign source, it is often difficult to assess its credibility. By any measure Professor Calzada's report cited by you and the Heritage Foundation is not reliable or credible. Moreover, Professor Calzada is not an eminent scholar from a renowned Spanish think tank, as the American press has been led to believe, but rather a virtually unknown figure who works for a small research institute with clear links to the energy industry and the extreme right-wing of the Spanish Conservative Party.
Second, any serious debate should be based on an unbiased assessment of available scientific evidence. The aforementioned report clearly fails this crucial test. Professor Calzada tries to find a long-term trend, but only cites employment data for the last year during Spain's serious recession. He argues that solar energy has destroyed 15,000 jobs in the last year, but neglects to cite official figures showing an increase in this job sector of about 500% in the preceding three years. The loss he refers to is thus nothing more than a minor downturn in an economy that is troubled by the recent economic crisis.
Professor Calzada also compares subsidized with non-subsidized sectors and conventional sources of energies with renewable energies. This is a report which fails to meet even the minimum standards of academic integrity. But worst of all, Professor Calzada's report ignores--or hides - the positive figures in net employment creation of other renewable energy sectors, such as windmills, where Spain has truly become a world leader."
Hey,
what is wrong with incrementally increasing our supply of clean energy? Start now to solve long-term problem.....it's called sustainability. And the other leg is efficiency.....let's all use a little less FF(oil)
Mark could also learn more about Germany and how much money they have been spending on solar subsidies and what little return they are getting from their investment. I am behind renewable energy 100% but we are not in a position, YET, to replace our existing infrastructure. I also believe that we have not discovered the eventual replacement for fossil fuel generation.
As a side note: The article states that the site requires no water. It is my understanding that these panels must be washed periodically. If not their efficiency suffers. With the amount of panels used it would seem that the water required in not trivial.
John,
What do you know about Germany's experience and is your source reliable? How would you know?
Re your side note: Why don't you ask the nice people building the plant for the answer instead of guessing?
"After all, taxpayers have to pay twice for solar power: once when they use it, and another when they pay the taxes that fund the subsidies, which act only to hide the true cost of solar power in the artificially-lowered price."
Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/20/th...
The link I posted above is regarding the German solar situation...please read it.
Looks like Jerry and Thomas got caught again with their pants down.
Thomas believes what a crank writes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Morrisse...
Now what is his expertise on energy again and why couldn't he get some basic facts straight? Is this your standard for who to believe Thomas? If it is it shows poor judgement on your part.
"Archie Bunker on Democrats" This one is worth watching and not a cheap shot on democrats in general. This administration is slowly raising the cost of energy so you will be force to buy STUFF, more energy efficient stuff or pay through the nose. It's your choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fqCS7Y_k...
Mark learn something about Germany instead of running your mouth. John was correct.
Read the article in yesterday's WAPO entitled
Solar industry faces subsidy cuts in Europe
"Everybody knows we can't go the way we've been going," said Miranda Schreurs, the director of the Environmental Policy Research Center at the Free University of Berlin and a government adviser. "It'll break the bank.""
"The subsidies for renewable energy cost German consumers about $14 a month for a family of four. Companies that generate renewable energy get a guaranteed above-market rate for 20 years. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/sola...
Mark--
The list posted by Thomas which you panned is only partial.
1. Federal R&D paid through taxes
2. The local and state tax breaks
3. The federal production tax credits
4. The requirement that renewable energy purchased by the utility
5. The subsidy given distributed generation through utility rebates
6. The cost to provide back-up electric service to people who install distributed generation through utility programs. They have electricity from the grid anytime they needed it and that is subsidized.
I think you have a lot to learn. You should stop insulting people and focus on learning.
Yes, Germany alternative energy situation is comical to say the least. As more germans face energy poverty hopefully they'll throw out the Herr Reids and Frau Berkeleys who foisted this 'plan' upon them.
Check out wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_P....
Do you remember the solar project at Barstow, and the distraction it was to the drivers.
Wait until Ivanpah starts up, if it does.
And check out who are the owners of Brightsource, and how much tax money is in the project.
Wow. I am really impressed on how effectively a visit by Pres. Obama draws all of the Renewable Energy Nay-Sayers who are also the Global Climate Change Deniers out of the woodworks and sends them spinning like sophomoric tops on their keyboards. It has been a while since I read such a collective stream of anti-reality in one place at one time since "The Birth Certificate" was last discussed.
Only two questions you need to know:
Will it raise your taxes? Yes
Will it raise your electricity bill? Yes
NVE has to buy power from this project (mandated by the gov't) and it is roughly 8 times more expensive than their company owned generation. How does this make any sense? Oh it's a free trip for Mr. Obama to come to Vegas...
thethinker=alarmist.
More on Germany for the brainwashed greenies:
"Will Fail Spectacularly -- Heavily Damaging The Economy"
Energy Expert: Germany's Renewable Energy Transition "Will Fail Spectacularly -- Heavily Damaging The Economy"
By P Gosselin on 25. Januar 2012
The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) issued a press release on a 28-page report that German energy expert Dr. Guenter Keil wrote concerning Germany's transition to renewable energy, and away from nuclear and fossil fuel energy.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/01/25/energ...
So it appears having read all the debate on both sides here.. and people pointing constantly to the failures of renewables here and abroad as a justification for continued heavy reliance on fossil energy..and reduced funding for renewables , they have shown what our collective energy policy is.
Conclusion:
We are screwed!!! There is no future beyond fossil fuels for the US and we are unwilling to make any investments to develop them. No tax subsidies to foster the industries and R&D..they just expect that all this will materialize and save the day when we finally need it. So we have the answer to our future given to us by the intelligent forward thinking people here!
WE DONT HAVE A FUTURE!
So enjoy the next couple decades burning up whats left and what we can find as we see higher prices, diminishing supply and decreasing lifestyles with eventual economic collapse. Don't worry though..unfunded research and technology will save us! hahahah.....
acejoker: please show some respect, it's King Barack Hussein Obama. We must not upset the childish Leftists who demand complete and absolute reverance toward the smartest man in the Galaxy, er Universe. Five full-time jobs says it all.
I note Jimmy's post is "...void of content..." and has a juvenile attempt at name calling by using the middle name of President Obama. The only people using, frightened or upset by such tactics are most likely racists.
Schaffer, our resident expert on the Second Amendment, is now an expert on racism. Bravo.
bimmerdude: our future is Germany! That's the road our energy-savvy green politicians are taking us down. Enjoy the grid unreliability.