Las Vegas Sun

January 30, 2015

Currently: 58° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Solar projects create jobs

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

A recent letter, “Solar plant won’t benefit residents,” mentions the Tonopah solar project but leaves out crucial details regarding job creation and economic impact.

SolarReserve’s Crescent Dunes project will create more than 600 jobs on-site during peak construction and 4,300 direct, indirect and induced jobs throughout the manufacturing chain. Orders have been placed for equipment and services in 20 U.S. states. Today, there are 180 workers on-site, with Nevada residents making up more than 70 percent of the construction workforce.

This investment in Nevada will generate $37 million in tax revenue in the first 10 operating years, contributing to school systems and police and fire departments. During the 30-year project life, $10 million per year will be spent on operating costs and salaries, including for 45 on-site operators.

The project has been financed, in part, under the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program. It’s required to be paid back in full with interest, estimated to bring $300 million of additional revenue to the U.S. government.

Government support of projects like Crescent Dunes advances innovative American technologies that create jobs and provide energy diversification and energy security. This flagship project includes solar energy storage and will serve as a proof point for future projects with this technology — creating additional U.S. jobs for years to come.

This is a success story for Nevada implementing the world’s leading technology to deliver solar energy on demand to 75,000 Nevada homes under a 25-year contract with NV Energy.

The author is the CEO of SolarReserve.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 21 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I agree with Future and disagree vehemently with the CEO author who is pushing his agenda for the sole reason of making business profits. The heck with the jobs, let's just worry about making and executing good energy policies. If we do those two things, the jobs will follow.


  2. Carmine,
    So you have met Mr. Smith and know what his inner beliefs are then? Remarkable. Alternately, you could be making up your argument. This is much more likely.

    This is good energy policy but you will never recognize this.

  3. So, Mr. Smith, if it's such a good deal and financially viable, why do you have your hand out to the taxpayers of this country? I have no quarrel with you & your investors risking your own capital in pursuit of "green" energy and I hope you succeed. But, I am vehemently against using tax dollars to fund any private enterprise, be it car companies, solar companies, farmers, whomever. And for the lefties to say otherwise is mind-boggling. After all, according to them, capitalists are greedy 1 percenter crooks who take advantage of the other 99% and, supposedly, Smith & his investors are capitalists. So why then subsidize the very folks you demonize? Because it fits their political agenda and results in "crony" capitalism which allows pencil-pushing, bureaucratic drones to pick winner & losers.

  4. "Carmine,
    So you have met Mr. Smith and know what his inner beliefs are then? "

    Mr. Schaffer:

    I don't have to be a chicken to spot a rotten egg.


  5. Jerry,
    Grow up.

  6. Mr. Smith,

    What percentage of the components being used are being supplied by foreign interests or nominally US companies using offshore labor?

    What percentage of those 4300 direct, indirect and induced jobs are actually here in the US? And how many of them will remain once the construction phase is complete?

    Please elaborate on what constitutes indirect and induced jobs with examples and estimated numbers for the examples. (I would not be surprised if the response to this would qualify the author for a career in creative writing.)

  7. Mr. Businessman:

    Here's my answer to you. Let the market determine the winners and losers in the energy industry. Not the Federal government. The Federal Government has no business in business. Period. End of the story.


  8. Hey, Carmine, did you type and send your answer on a device using electricity from Hoover Dam?

  9. Carmine writes empty slogans rather than admit the obvious.

  10. "Why should they continue to get subsidies?"

    They shouldn't BUT they do employ more workers than than your green energy industry SO based on your half-baked logic here they should and probably therefore do.


  11. "Hey, Carmine, did you type and send your answer on a device using electricity from Hoover Dam?"

    Yes, and the last I heard Thomas A. Edison invented electricity in his laboratory at Menlo Park, NJ. Without any government money.


  12. "Carmine writes empty slogans rather than admit the obvious."

    The obvious is that the slogans just so happen to also be factual. That's obvious to most.


  13. "YES, solar power will be a permanent power source
    now and in the future."

    Mr. Teamster:

    For once I agree with you. But with the following caveat: For China. They beat us to the punch already. Even with all our government subsidies.


  14. Carmine: They have nothing substansive to say, so they spew venom. They are the same folks who hate "greedy" corporations but drive vehicles built by them, shop in stores owned by them and communicate on equipment produced by them. Their lives are made easier and more comfortable because of all those "greedy" coporations - they eat better, are healthier and live longer - yet, child like, they bite the hand that feeds them. Obviously, they were born in the wrong Century. They belong in the Dark Ages - a time when ignorance was King. They are basically "Flat Earthers" who believe the Sun orbits the Earth or, more likely, around them. Some would even call them "Luddites."

  15. Carmine:

    1. You can't "invent" a force of nature.

    2. Besides, what Edison invented was a system based on Direct Current, since supplanted by a system of alternating current.

    3. You missed the real point, which was: had not the U.S. government not ventured on many occasions where you adamantly insist it ought never go: A. There would me no Hoover Dam, B. Only a small, inhospitable town living off repairing steam locomotives where we all now live in comfort with modern conveniences; C. No semiconductors except as unique university laboratory experiments. D. No modern circuits; and E. No internet for you to use to express your indignation at the government wasting money like that.

  16. Mr. Schaffer:

    You don't have the creditabilty to ask.


  17. I got the point well, Mr. Goodman. You didn't get mine. There are chores that clearly belong to the realm of government: Roads, bridges, infrastructure, military, security etc. Picking industries to invest taxpayers' money, without taxpayers' consent, is not government's role.


  18. Mr. Teamster:

    Solar and wind power is a green energy industry business. Subsidized with taxpayers' money. Much of which has been disbursed with no measurable return for the taxpayers, just the CEO's and shareholders of the companies receiving the funds.

    As I told you many many times, electric cars have been in the research and development stage since the gas car was invented in 1908 of Henry Ford. Over 100 years. How far has it gotten? 25 miles on an overnight full charge if you're lucky according to the GM Volt. Volt has a price tag of $43,000 and that doesn't count the US taxpayers' subsidies which by some accounts are just as much and more. The plant in Michigan was closed once this year and now again. This time longer to retool to make other gas GM vehicles. What's the problem? Same as it's been for 100 years. Batteries. Can't improve them to compete with gas.

    One hundred years from now our relatives will still be saying the same about electric cars and their batteries. Too expensive and can't compete equally and comparably with less expensive gas powered vehicles. By then, like now the MPG ratings for gas will be vastly improved just as they have been for recent decades.


  19. Carmine can't get basic facts correct but that never stops him from posting. Is anyone buying his shtick?

    Just one example of how wrong his last post is: