California to get world's largest solar farm

Cleantech America, a San Francisco based developer, has launched a project to build the world's largest solar farm, giving this Spanish solar tower a run for its money, as well as insulting the work of countless Tesco engineers and their puny, insignificant solar roof. When completed in 2011, the 80-megawatt spread of solar panels will cover roughly 640 acres and be 17 times the size of the largest US solar farm in existence. The project, which will generate enough power for nearly 21,000 homes, will be sold to the Kings River Conservation District, a public agency that purchases power for 12 cities and two counties in California's Central Valley. The company hopes that a solar farm of this size will be an industry-wide tipping point for energy providers, and will drive the cost of solar energy downward. Meanwhile, Tesco and Spain will be plotting their sublime revenge.

[kingofwale @ Jul 9th 2007 8:29PM]

640 acres for 21,000 homes? DOn't you think it might be BETTER for to just grew 640 acres of TREES?

Honestly, it's just not worth it, the technology is not even there yet.

[mjl @ Jul 17th 2007 7:02AM]

640 acres for 21,000 homes? DOn't you think it might be BETTER for to just grew 640 acres of TREES?

Do you think there really going to put this somewhere you can grow trees?
California does have quite a lot of desert.

[LordFarkward @ Jul 10th 2007 3:37AM]

eh? no matter how i read it, having enough solar power to provide juice for 21,000 homes is definitely better... 64 acres of trees can probably provide these 21,000 homes firewood that would last a few nights... or a lotta paper for them to draw on

so, er... no, i don't think it's better if they planted trees

[PEZ @ Jul 10th 2007 7:20AM]

Its in the friggin desert. If you want to save a cactus.. go ahead.

[Brian James @ Jul 9th 2007 8:39PM]

"640 acres for 21,000 homes? DOn't you think it might be BETTER for to just grew 640 acres of TREES?

Honestly, it's just not worth it, the technology is not even there yet." -kingofwale

While I'd like to say any step in the stopping use of non-renewable resources is always a good thing... this is irrational. You would ONLY see something like this in California. 640 acres for 21k homes is rediculous. The technology has such a long way to go... why not just clear off the 640 acres of land, build a super efficent nuclear power plant, and use the remaining land as a safety zone and waste facility?

[Faust @ Jul 9th 2007 8:41PM]

The land has yet to be purchased, the deals with the panel vendors have yet to be made, the permits have yet to be aquired, the lines have yet to be approved, and the investors have yet to be identified to do any of this in the first place.

I'd say there's plenty of time for the technology to be improved.

Good reporting though! "Man in Fresno has Idea"

[cmonkey @ Jul 9th 2007 8:41PM]

Just to put things in perspective, it would take 20 of these (about 20 square miles of land) to equal the power generation of a new nuclear reactor. Keep in mind that that is only at peak power, as in a cloudless day in the middle of summer. Factoring in nights, winters, and clouds, the average power produced would be far lower.

There's no mention of the price of this solar farm, but if it's less than $50 million or so, it could be cost effective relative to nuclear.

[Nils @ Jul 9th 2007 9:01PM]

Since you like taking into account ALL the externalities, let's not forget the fact that this will infuse money into more R&D in the future. There are Mavericks, Adopters and Followers. I think we know which one you are,

J

[cmonkey @ Jul 9th 2007 9:32PM]

I think you forgot the category of Realists.

I don't doubt there is a market for this. There is always a need for additional peak power on sunny days. It's just that you can't count on solar to save the world.

Anyway, in response to Sasha S, its being designed by Cleantech America, a company that deals with photovoltaic panels.

[Ulysses @ Jul 9th 2007 11:17PM]

"Keep in mind that that is only at peak power, as in a cloudless day in the middle of summer"
- Like almost every day in CA.

"Factoring in nights, winters, and clouds, the average power produced would be far lower."
- If we could turn off (or down) our nuclear reactors overnight, we would, so I don't see the problem with some of our power sources working that way automatically.

[Mike @ Jul 10th 2007 9:55AM]

Unfortunately, the cost will surely be way higher than $50 million - with current technologies (which obviously keep coming down in price), it costs about $70million for a 10mw solar farm right now so that would put a ballpark cost of approx $500-600million for this one. Solar just isn't anywhere near cost effective versus any other common form of power however as many others have mentioned, there's more than the price tag to consider and a clean / renewable / low ongoing cost power solution is amazing IMO (although in real world, at 80mw, this is probably less than 0.01% of the areas power requirements so you'd need a whole lot more of these to smart making a dent)

[Marshall @ Jul 9th 2007 8:53PM]

How does this compare to the farm at Carson's Corner, north of Barstow on US-395? [ The corner of US-395 and SR 58 ]

Using Google Earth, I estimate that at two fields, one 3/4 of a square mile (480 acres), and the other about 1/2 of a square mile (320 acres).

I'm wondering how 640 acres can be "17 times" as big as these fields.

[Bigsby @ Jul 9th 2007 9:01PM]

And what about the huge one they're building up near Toronto in Canada? I thought that one is bigger.

[Mike @ Jul 10th 2007 9:57AM]

The one near Toronto (Sarnia actually (closer to Detroit than Toronto)) will be 40 mw (i.e. 1/2 this project)

[Sasha S. @ Jul 9th 2007 9:03PM]

In California - where sun is abundant, land (on many places) cheap and enviromentalisam on the rise - this is a very good idea.

You are forgetting that they will probably not use PV panels at all. Rather they might use system displayed on the picture above - parabolic mirrors heating the tube with working fluid. The same system used in recently completed solar plant in Nevada.

This technology has an added bonus that they can store heat and keep running at night as well.

Message to kingofwale and Brian James (posters #1 and #2): Would you rather live next to this facility or your proposed small footprint nuclear facility?

Lets assume that this technology is used to make 10 times bigger facility: 800MW - the size of decent nuclear plant. The area needed would be roughly 10 times bigger - say 6400 acres - that is 25 square kilometers (10 sq miles) - roughly the area of a medium regional airport (fenced off area that is). Is that really so much space? Countries rich in sun-days mostly have abundant uninhabited areas where such facilities could be placed.

[Glenn Beer @ Jul 9th 2007 9:27PM]

Is there some reason why solar farms arn't mounted above the city streets.

[kingofwale @ Jul 9th 2007 9:15PM]

>Message to kingofwale and Brian James (posters #1 and #2): Would you rather live next to this facility or your proposed small footprint nuclear facility?

I would MUCH rather live near close to a nuclear facility if it means to get clean energy without wasting lands that could otherwise be used to grow trees.

instead of an half-assed project that's not even nearly as effiecent at producing energy as people like. AND costing millions.

[TIMMAH! @ Jul 9th 2007 11:40PM]

kingofwale sez:

"I would MUCH rather live near close to a nuclear facility if it means to get clean energy without wasting lands that could otherwise be used to grow trees."

I don't think they're going to put this in a place where you'll be growing a lot of trees. Maybe cactus and joshua trees maybe...

[Zach @ Jul 9th 2007 9:19PM]

640 acres is 1 square mile. That's not very much space. Granted the technology will change in time, it's a start. Even if it's not the most efficient power plant out there, it will raise awareness. Stimulating thought leads to inspiring action, which is a good thing.

[Mike @ Jul 9th 2007 9:32PM]

Let's assume this land is near-useless desert (Which I assume, likely exists in the South-West US). How many trees grow there now? Is the whole area trees? Why not plant trees in all the deserts or badlands around the world?

If the area is useless and little grows there, who cares how much space is taken up? I mean, as long as there's enough room left over in the desert to make those really cool car commercials, why not put some of that land to use?

[chadow @ Jul 9th 2007 9:32PM]

Engadget just had an article a week or 2 ago about some research that was vastly improving solar panels. The more projects there are like this, the more research and development will be done and the better the technology will be from it. I think its great news, although the amount of land used seems pretty ridiculous. Its to bad they cant they find a useless piece of land like a cemetery and put it there. Or hey...I think there is enough land already ruined for thousands of years to come in Nevada (nuclear test zones) that we could build hundreds of acres of these arrays on. An added bonus is they wouldn't have to worry about vandals or anyone messing with the equipment.

[Some Guy @ Jul 9th 2007 9:37PM]

Any idea how many megawatt-hours this will generate a year?

[starwxrwx @ Jul 9th 2007 9:40PM]

You can't just plant trees in the desert, even with the abundance of water Callifornian's are spoilt with.

What technology will they use though? I noticed the article didn't mention it either. Panels or simply reflection to heat water?

Either way I think solar energy ideas are very exciting and hot dry areas are perfect for their implementation.

[humpty @ Jul 9th 2007 9:45PM]

In SimCity 2000, i also built the Solar power plant first, cause it caused no pollution and you could put it anywhere. Then, when i had enough for a fusion plant, it was goodbye to those solar plants.. i built parks in their place.

[BitBucket @ Jul 9th 2007 9:58PM]

This project would be much smaller, both in terms of square acerage and power generation, than solar plants proposed by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric.
Check out this story about them. We're talking 800 megawatts, 4,500 acres, sterling engines that are 30 percent efficient.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/11/69528

[Warhorse @ Jul 10th 2007 10:07AM]

Wow, now that is a good idea. Anyone heard updates on this project?

[Scott @ Jul 9th 2007 10:07PM]

humpty @ Jul 9th 2007 9:45PM

In SimCity 2000, i also built the Solar power plant first, cause it caused no pollution and you could put it anywhere. Then, when i had enough for a fusion plant, it was goodbye to those solar plants.. i built parks in their place.


uh... glad to see important decisions are based on A GAME, smart thinking.

[feffrey @ Jul 9th 2007 10:13PM]

I would gladly live inside a nuclear reactor (so long as I am outside the shield)
Nuclear power plants are the safest, cheapest and best means of generating power on the planet, yet due to irrationally fears and idiocy we resort to loosing money on "safe" means of electricity.
France has one thing right, over 70% of their power is generated by nuclear energy. If the French of all people are using nuclear energy why aren't we using it for everything?

[BitBucket @ Jul 9th 2007 10:17PM]

If nuclear energy is the only solution, then why is Southern California Edison, operator of the San Onofre nuclear power plant, proposing a 500 megawatt solar project in the California desert?

[chadow @ Jul 9th 2007 10:51PM]

The nuclear power plants themselves ARE pretty safe and make great amounts of "clean" power.......until fuel rods and any other radioactive materials are removed, sealed in concrete and buried or sunk. Tell me you would like to live next door to the place they dispose of the spent materials or would like to go in the ocean someday after these casks start leaking. This crap is deadly radioactive for hundreds of years. Nuclear power plant waste products are FAR from clean and safe

Nuclear power is the great catch 22. There is nothing better for making power, but there isn't much worse than the radioactive waste they generate. Solar power has its problems as well, inefficiency and cost, but at least ugly acres of land aren't going to cause birth defects and cancer.

When they actually came up with a respectable and responsible way to dispose of nuclear waste, I'll be all for it. In my opinion dumping it in deep ocean crevices is positively not a responsible solution.

[Bill @ Jul 9th 2007 10:15PM]

This is a tiny unit, which only produces significant power for 1/3 (or less) of the day.

Keep in mind a unit of a baseload power plant is usually sized for 1000MW or more, and there are usually 2 or more units at one plant.

Nightly Business Report tonight said nearly 100 nuclear plants are approaching end of life.

Solar's not going to replace them, no matter how many compact fluorescents we buy - it's coal or nuclear, take your pick.

[aseer @ Jul 9th 2007 10:44PM]

Public money going to fund a private solar entity is fine in my view (we do it for the oil/gas/coal industries, if not through direct payouts then by letting them emit with few controls). That said, how does a PV farm beat out a solar thermal installation (once your are going solar and deploying in a large scale contiguous plant why not go for the most efficient technology)?

[TIB @ Jul 9th 2007 10:44PM]

i recommend reading this:

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/solarenergy.html

with regard to nukes: they are rather polluting in an indirect way, and in fact some studies suggest burning the fossil fuel used to create/run/dismantle/store waste directly for power generation would be more efficient.

also, reactors take forever to build (before they can come online), make great targets for the bogeyman to attack and leave a rather large problem for our descendants to deal with. a solar farm can generate power in a much more modular way and thus provide energy shortly after construction begins (depending on type).

it is only logical that we use the fusion reactor that nature has kindly provided to meet our global energy needs.

[feffrey @ Jul 9th 2007 11:16PM]

Best place to store the spent rods is here -> yucca mountain. Simply dig a big enough hole, package it up and your set.
It can also be used. Depleted Uranium make great penetrating rounds used to destroy tanks. or it can be used to make nuclear bombs
It can also be recycled but that costs too much money.
or if a powerful and cheap space launch vehicle becomes possible launch it into the sun.

[Owen V @ Jul 10th 2007 12:42AM]

they'll never launch it away, the risks of the rocket failing and tons of nuclear waste landing somewhere on earth are too disastrous.

However, if it could be done that way then the whole nuclear waste problem would be solved.

[Warhorse @ Jul 10th 2007 10:19AM]

Wow, so now we just look for a bigger landfill for our garbage? That still feels a little "out of sight, out of mind" to me Granted the sun as quite a distance away. I don't feel that this is a true solution to the problem.

[chadow @ Jul 9th 2007 11:16PM]

Did you ever see the news story about the guy who had solar panels installed AS the roof on his house? (Not just little panels...but his entire roof). He was still connected to the power grid but for the most part his meter went backwards. He said he often gets credit from the power company instead of a bill.

If installing a solar roof ever gets to where the cost is sensible enough that it can become standard in new home construction, we will be well on our way to solving our residential power consumption needs.

Projects like this one will only help bring solar technology further along. And in the wise words of Martha Stewart, its a good thing.

[Chris @ Jul 10th 2007 12:03AM]

80 megawatts, what a joke.

[phat @ Jul 10th 2007 12:09AM]

People for some strange reason tend to dismiss direct solar energy off-hand, without looking at the numbers. More solar energy hits the earth's surface in one hour than the entire world consumes in all other forms in one year. To meet the world's total power demand would require us to panel over less than 1% of the world's *land* area (the source I'll cite below will say 0.16%, but I'm a little more conservative). I'm pretty sure we can find 1% of the world's land that is plentiful in sunlight and not so useful for anything else. Between our densely populated cities, we have lots and lots of rather barren land. And even within cities, solar panels on roofs in much of the US would reduce our draw on the grid by more than 50%. In fact, during the day, when the sun is brightest and industry is busiest, solar roof panels can feed the grid to reduce the peak demand on the power plants.

Now, compare this to nuclear. An average nuclear plant produces 1GW. We have less than 1000 nuclear plants in the world right now, if I recall correctly. World power demand from all sources is about 20TW. If we were to totally replace word power demand with nuclear, we'd have to build roughly 1 nuclear plant a day for the next 50 years.

Sources:
http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/
http://www.ecotopia.com/ases/SolarToday/DawnOfTheSolarEra.pdf

[Travis @ Jul 10th 2007 2:29AM]

20TW of electricity is 250,000 plants of this size. Building them at one per day, and counting out the current contribution of solar energy, that's almost 700 years of one plant per day.

Also, 250,000 plants at 640 acres is 250,000 square miles, or just under the size of Texas. True, that's not a lot of land on a global scale, but it's a sizable chunk nonetheless, especially for places like Japan where there just isn't that much land.

[Russ @ Jul 10th 2007 3:33AM]

i wonder if this is feasible: create a solar tower in an urban environment - and place mirrors on top of surrounding buildings/houses.. probably not. but it would look pretty cool.

[LordFarkward @ Jul 10th 2007 3:38AM]

*640

[Generic @ Jul 10th 2007 4:16AM]

If solar panels are used, well they have the same tendency of becoming cheaper when production is high just like all mass market products. Isn't this a good thing for the market and R&D...

As for nuclear plants, anything is better than The Simpson's three eyed fish er... three eyed tree!! ;)

[steve @ Jul 10th 2007 5:48AM]

http://www.cis.co.uk/servlet/Satellite?cid=1116834043894&pagename=CoopBank/Page/tplBlank

[PEZ @ Jul 10th 2007 7:48AM]

its in the fucking desert asshole.

[Kent Beuchert @ Jul 10th 2007 10:03AM]

I don't get this "Either nuclear or solar, but not both" nonsense. You better be prepared to use everything, including carbon sequestration, if you expect to actually make a difference. We have seen the puny effect of wind power and how crappy it is and EXPENSIVE.

[EB @ Jul 10th 2007 11:15AM]

I think It would be nice to mention that the world current largest Solar panel farm is in Serpa, Portugal , with an installed capacity of 11MWatt.
Soon to follow will be another one in Moura, Portugal with an installed capacity of 62MW with an area of aprox 282 acres and investment of 250 Million Euros (see http://www.amper.pt/o_projecto.html Portuguese language though).