Talk:Ivanpah Solar Power Facility

Efficiency of solar concentrators

It seems to be that vertical walls of solar concentrators on towers should have notable amount of lost energy due to air convection in the neighborhood and due to reflection/irradiance of light. What is this figure? And do some thermal solar power stations exist, which have light concentrating systems by trapping incoming light into (partially) enclosed volume, m/b using angular reflectors (mirrors) on top of tower? Thanks for references in advance.Beaber (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsnrag26A-s Beaber (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

desert tortoise

I came here to get info on the desert tortoise which is being endangered by this proposed facility, and instead read nothing but positive information on the solar plant. It currently reads as though employees at BrightSource Energy wrote it. See [1], [2], [3], [4]. — Eric Herboso 05:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article says: "In 2010, the project was scaled back from the original 440 MW design to avoid building on habitat of the desert tortoise.[13] The project site area is mostly creosote bush land and is prime desert tortoise habitat, as well as the north end being a wildlife corridor". Johnfos (talk) 06:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

'Liberals' will be complexed and perplexed, ...:-) ... It's an Obama/Democrat New Energy lead; but birds are frying themselves and a protest already happened. Edit with care. -- AstroU (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Don't put this in the Article herein.

Nothing perplexing about it when you realize that coal kills exponentially more birds and solar displaces coal usage. --Icowrich (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate?

Is this facility the same as the one that has the entry at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Solar_Park — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.191.165 (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We drive the Interstate Highway 15 and there are two different ones we see. They are different, both in location and technology. The smaller one has only collector panels; the massive new facility has mirrors focused on the (three) towers to generate steam and then electricity. -- AstroU (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Cost comparison with coal/nuclear?

The statement in the last line of the introductory paragraph is misleading: "The estimated construction costs for this CSP project ($5,561.00 per KW) fall between the construction costs for coal and nuclear power plants per Synapse Energy Economics". There should be a source citation for this statement.

According to NRELs cost report for generation technologies (http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-cost-report.pdf) while nuclear is around $6000/kW, coal is quite below at $2800/kW and only closer when including CCS. The statement should indicate it refers to CCS coal, rather than regular pulverized coal plants.

In addition, a capital cost comparison leaves out the differences in capacity factors between CSP (30%) and coal/nuclear (85-90%), that generate really different levelized costs of energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.156.193 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The above statement indicates wording that is then justified as being true as-is. CAPEX costs are claimed to be between the values for two other types of generation facilities, and then the costs are given which do indeed bracket this facility's CAPEX cost, making the "misleading" statement simply true. As such, I can't understand what is being requested. The additional aspect regarding capacity factors is one part of a full accounting of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), but if one wishes to go down that road, fuel costs (coal and uranium vs no fuel cost) and other OPEX costs would be even more critical to include than just capacity factor and OPEX alone. 68.119.233.31 (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Performance and supposed lack of energy

Performance section says: A claimed capacity factor of 31.4%[27] is expected implying an annual generation of 370 MW (nameplate capacity) * 31.4% (capacity factor) * 8760 hours/year = 1.02 TW-hrs/year. Based on irradiance and efficiency, the expected output is 2717 kWh/m2/yr * 173,500 heliostats * 15 m2/heliostat * 28.72% efficiency[3] = 0.86 TW-hrs/year. While the first calculation is ok, the second is obviously wrong: 2717 * 173500 * 15 * 0.2872 = 2030789046, i.e. 2.03 TW-hrs/year, which is ca. two times more than implied output. Difference comes probably from losses on heliostats (reflected light, as well as not exactly the same surface as measured for the flat surface), steam heating and so on. Still, there is no lack of output, as the paragraph implies (at least no such thing results from these data). AsalmZNC (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Resulting solar capture to steam heating efficiency should be about 55%, a good value for a 1,050 °F (566 °C), not synthetic oil limited, receiver temperature. But at this temperature the 28,7% efficiency is disappointing. It may depend on the air (dry cooling) condenser ? --Robertiki (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

DaveyHume says: None of the figures in the article come close to the fundamental rule of any discussion of physical phenomena, except for the figure of 173,500 heliostats, which is presumably accurate to six figures, the area of each heliostat, and the customary 8760 hours, which is exactly correct for slightly more than three years out of four. But the figure for expected gross solar input energy per year is given to four figures, implying that the sunlight absorbed by the skies over this plant is constant to one part in ten thousand from year to year, which is hardly likely. The trouble with ALL recent-solar sourced energy is that the weather is fickle, and not just because of aircraft contrails. DaveyHume (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The value for annual solar yield is taken from the Typical Meteorological Year (TMY) dataset, which provides a statistically representative year based on historical data. The value given is thus accurate as a statistically typical value, but in no way does its value imply constancy from year-to-year. For concentrating solar facilities, direct normal insolation (DNI) is the figure of merit and it generally varies around +/- 5-10% for desert regions in data sets from 2005-2021, so not too irregular on annual average. Aircraft contrails are essentially a non-entity when it comes to concentrating solar power, as they generally only block a tremendously small fraction of the sky (and only the region directly covering the image of the sun matters for concentrating optical systems), are not perfectly opaque, and are in-motion with the local air-mass so any blockage for a given heliostat is very temporary. 68.119.233.31 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Current new News

Headline-1: Shining a light on the future of energy: Awe-inspiring images of world’s biggest solar farm which produces enough power for 140,000 California homes - and they’re not done building yet

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2564700/Shining-light-future-energy-Awe-inspiring-images-world-s-biggest-solar-farm-produces-power-140-000-California-homes-not-building-yet.html

QUOTE: "Even as America dashes to frack its picturesque landscape, energy officials in the country are finding greener alternatives beef up the nation's energy security. These incredible pictures show the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System in the Mojave Desert near the border between California and Nevada. It opened earlier this month after years of regulatory and legal wrangling, which ranged from relocating protected tortoises to assessing the impact on Mojave milkweed, and is now generating enough green power for 140,000 homes. Now federal officials have announced two more massive solar power plants in the sun-soaked desert, a move which ironically has angered environmentalists who fear the impact that the facilities will have on the area's ecosystem. They have also expressed concern after it emerged that birds flying past the site were bursting into flames from the heat. Solar thermal plants like the Ivanpah complex and the two new ones proposed use hundreds of thousands of computer controlled mirrors to focus sunlight on boilers which sit on tall towers. The concentrated rays boil water which becomes steam which drives turbines to create electricity with no carbon emissions. Scroll down for video" -- [There are 19 amazing pictures, one video, and one map showing tie energy plant is actually in California, on the CA-NV border.] AstroU (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: HUGE THERMAL PLANT OPENS AS SOLAR INDUSTRY GROWS

• http://bigstory.ap.org/article/huge-thermal-plant-opens-solar-industry-grows

QUOTE: "Some of the 300,000 computer-controlled mirrors, each about 7 feet high and 10 feet wide, reflect sunlight to boilers that sit on 459-foot towers. The sun's power is used to heat water in the boilers' tubes and make steam, which in turn drives turbines to create electricity Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2014 in Primm, Nev. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal land near the California-Nevada border, will be opened formally Thursday after years of regulatory and legal tangles. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson) Prev 10 of 10 Next PRIMM, Nev. (AP) — A windy stretch of the Mojave Desert once roamed by tortoises and coyotes has been transformed by hundreds of thousands of mirrors into the largest solar power plant of its type in the world, a milestone for a growing industry that is testing the balance between wilderness conservation and the pursuit of green energy across the West. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal land near the California-Nevada border, formally opens Thursday after years of regulatory and legal tangles ranging from relocating protected tortoises to assessing the impact on Mojave milkweed and other plants. The $2.2 billion complex of three generating units, owned by NRG Energy Inc., Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy, can produce nearly 400 megawatts — enough power for 140,000 homes. It began making electricity last year. Larger projects are on the way, but for now, Ivanpah (EYE'-ven-pah) is being described as a marker for the United States' emerging solar industry." -- AstroU (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future editing.

Headline-3: High-Tech Solar Projects Fail to Deliver [... (a year later)]
"$2.2 billion California project generates 40% of expected electricity"

• http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-tech-solar-projects-fail-to-deliver-1434138485

QUOTE: "Some costly high-tech solar power projects aren’t living up to promises their backers made about how much electricity they could generate." -- AstroU (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Article-4: newly-released-data-indicates-ivanpah-gas-5-percent (25Apr2016)

It seems that Ivanpah is actually staying under its 5% gas consumption cap, this is important news as naysayers keep harping about the gas usage, this article explains this somewhat.

• http://cleantechnica.com/2016/04/25/newly-released-data-indicates-ivanpah-gas-5-percent/
  

Fresh data (to feb 16) that could fill in the blanks in the table of generation and gas usage. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/57075?freq=M&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&columnchart=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.57075-ALL-ALL.M&linechart=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.57075-ALL-ALL.M&maptype=0&pin=ELEC.GEN.SUN-US-99.M Salbayeng (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed revisions: Ivanpah Solar Power Facility

Would like to put this up for consideration. My name is Susan Chana and I work for an agency that represents NRG Energy. We are looking for some assistance in making some corrections and updates to the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility article. Following are some of the most important updates for you to consider:

• Article references in 1st paragraph that facility is not yet fully operational and all the solar power towers are currently operational.

• Article states in 2nd paragrah under "Description" that construction on the project was halted because it was impacting desert tortoises. The US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) said that it was not likely to impact them Press release, fws.gov

• Within the "Environmental Impact" section the article references that bird deaths in 2014 will range between 1,000 and 28,000. This impact can be narrowed down and we can offer some specific #'s as the facility must report bird deaths on a monthly basis. From Jan - June 2014 the facility reported 321 bird deaths with 133 being directly related to sunlight being reflected into the boilers. A April 2014 USFWS report states that 141 birds were collected at Ivanpah last Fall and that 47 of the deaths were attributed to the boilers.Center Supplemental Opposition to Motion.pdf, docketpublic.energy.ca.gov

• The final sentence in the "Environmental Impacts" section is not related to Ivanpah, but to to the Palen power plant.usatoday.com bird-feathers-singed-solar-power

That is just a sampling and we are not asking that anything subjective be changed. We would only like to be sure the facts are accurate.

Appreciate your review and any discussion about the changes.

SusanChana (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)SusanChana

Hi Susan, thank you for your post and your WP:COI disclosure. Best, - Rfassbind (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

None of the presented seems to be controversial. Feel free to correct and update article directly (using appropriate references). --Jklamo (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, those editors watching the article can review to ensure accuracy and balance. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, all. Really appreciate your help. Will make the updates myself, please do keep a lookout and I would appreciate any feedback on the changes. Still learning. SusanChana (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jklamo I'm a bit concerned about doing this given the WP:COI guidelines. What are your thoughts? Thx again. SusanChana (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@SusanChana, I revised your change somewhat to restore the independent news sources already in the atricle, as well as the "wikilink" from that sentence to the Wikipedia article entitled List of solar thermal power stations. Although the press release you used as a source is very likely an acceptable self-published source for verifying non-controversial facts, Wikipedia has a strong preference for using independent reliable sources when possible. And links within Wikipedia, "wikilinks", are an important part of how the encyclopedia is structured. Finally, I added some identifying information to the source you added: we try to avoid the use of Wikipedia:Bare URLs, so that other readers will be better able to identify and find sources. Thanks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Arxiloxos This is fantastic. Thx for looking out to include that and I appreciate the background info as well. Will keep this in mind as I make additional edits. SusanChana (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made these updates as well as some additional smaller ones. All sources have been cited. I do have some additional ones to make re: the avaiation glare issue, but need to source the info before proceeding. Thx to all who assisted and offered feedback. SusanChana (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Would that more 'official' people would assist with facts on their associated WP pages! -- AstroU (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC) -- Susan, you're the greatest!

AstroUThanks for that! It was a fantastic learning experience. My efforts involved a lot of great coaching and review support from Jklamo, Arxiloxos and others who cleaned up after me:) Working on more updates using this same process on other articles and it has been just awesome having all the support. My number one priority is to not cross any lines and follow all Wikipedia guidelines. Hope you will allow me reach out to you for support occasionally73.43.39.69 (talk) 12:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)!

Absolutely! Keep up the Good Work. Both of us are up early this Sunday morning. -- AstroU (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ivanpah Solar Power Facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130312112703/http://www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=239 to http://www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=239

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: add generation from gas to the table , and add another row for 2016

Hi Folks,
I don't know how to edit the tables.
There is data now from the EIA that includes electricity generated from gas, this should be included in the table as an additional row, as the average reader has no idea how many megawatts are produced from a miliion cubic foot of gas.

• http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/57075?freq=M&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&columnchart=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.57075-ALL-ALL.M&linechart=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.57075-ALL-ALL.M&maptype=0&pin=ELEC.GEN.SUN-US-99.M
  

Also we should add 2016 to the table.
Salbayeng (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

well it happens this is what why I just did (before reading this comment), updating with most of 2016 info (the two last month are still missing), also completing older info for gas used that used to be missing and that EIA now provides. In fact I separated the two instead of reporting only solar, because the existing numbers claimed to be solar, but where actually all generation, as could be seen when checking with the actual EIA information. Also I updated the data so that one can see directly how much energy there's in the gas burned, instead of having only the volume in mcf, as there's much debate about how useful the plant compared to burning gas directly. Well people now can easily access the raw numbers, and make their own opinion based on facts, not advocacy one way or the other. --Jmdwp (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Capacity factor

Without energy storage, how should a direct insolation solar field yield a 31.4% capacity factor ? Excluding diffuse insolation input, I would expect more on the 20% side. Something is wrong. --Robertiki (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

It is supposed to use natural gas, in winter and the mornings, instead of storage. Thus yielding a higher capacity factor than pure solar. But even with natural gas use it is under performing.Andynct (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not talking about winter and the mornings but about the daily average capacity factor. And, anyway, if the capacity factor is made up with natural gas, why not burn it all night and make it 90% ? But it would not be a solar plant. It's ridiculous. Solar Energy Generating Systems is stated as 21% and delivers that. Which source stated that Ivanpah should yield 34% ? All the exaggerated calculations start with that. I would say that to expect more than a million megawatt-hours of electricity each year involves a massive use of natural gas, not what you would expect from a solar plant. Ok, making at least half from Sun power is better than making it all with natural gas, but it should had been said starting from the design phase.If you want to kill one's job, simply declare the highest awaited expectations, that he could not ever meet. --Robertiki (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Too much data detail about production and gas consumption

I have removed tables of converted values which imply a 100% boiler efficiency and tables displaying only solar production which seem somewhat strange. Too clumsy. I suggest as made in Nevada Solar One page, with a table displaying solar/gas share only on year level data, and monthly data for global generation. --Robertiki (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it was clumsy, but there's much debate on how much gas is used wrt to the power produced, and the best NPOV informed answer seems to me to be the raw data. What is done for Nevada seems a good option, note their detailed table is showing the solar production, not the whole one. I think it would be good still to document somehow in a directly comparable way how much energy the gas consumed represents, because it's much higher than the proportional part of electricity generated from it. --Jmdwp (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivanpah Solar Power Facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222215905/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/huge-thermal-plant-opens-solar-industry-grows to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/huge-thermal-plant-opens-solar-industry-grows

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ivanpah Solar Power Facility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130722173033/http://ivanpahsolar.com/update-from-ivanpah-may-2013 to http://ivanpahsolar.com/update-from-ivanpah-may-2013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629173557/http://www.google.org/rec.html to http://www.google.org/rec.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140328174006/https://lpo.energy.gov/doe-finalizes-1-6-billion-loan-guarantee-for-brightsource-energy-inc/ to https://lpo.energy.gov/doe-finalizes-1-6-billion-loan-guarantee-for-brightsource-energy-inc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Fossil fuel section maths?

In the section on fossil fuel use, the following sentences seem to contain some bad maths, or am I reading it wrongly?

"If that fuel had been used in a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plant, it would have generated about 124 GWh of electrical energy.[36] The facility used that gas plus solar energy to produce 419 GWh of electrical energy (more than four times that of the referenced CCGT plant)"

The 419GWh produced energy divided by the 124GWh = 3.38. This is much less than the claimed "more than four times".

Or have I misunderstood something? Do those sentences refer to 2 different CCGT plants or is the maths just wrong?

I suggest changing "more than four times" to "more than three times". Lkingscott (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yl10506 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yl10506 (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)