California solar energy plant developers asked the Renewable Energy Policy Group this past Friday if environmental approval processes could be sped up, since projects are making little to no progress towards their 2010 construction goals–goals that must be reached if the projects are to qualify for specific federal funds. This frustration with the slow pace of approval has become something of a theme with solar development in the southwest and California. Various bills have been proposed that would (a) speed up the approval processes for solar energy plants or (b) at least provide clearer environmental guidelines for plant development to make it easier to predict the success or failure of a project. Developers don’t see why separate guidelines need to be established–can’t they just use the guidelines in place for other large desert developments? Why is solar so much more complicated?
The fact is, solar is just new. Even though the technology (in some cases) has been around for half a century or longer, we truly don’t yet know what long-term impact solar energy plants will have on the land around them. Of course, we didn’t know this when we built the first coal plants, or the first nuclear power plants, and while one could hope we’ve learned from our trials and errors, perhaps one thing we’ve learned is caution. This is an inopportune time for lawmakers to suddenly get cautious about land use, though, as California in particular struggles to meet its solar capacity goals set by the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and managed as the California Solar Initiative. By the end of 2010, says the RPS, California should be getting 20 percent of its power from renewable sources, among them solar electric generation and solar thermal plants. It looks like the state will fall short and need to redouble its efforts to ramp up renewable capacity in time to meet its next milestone of 33 percent by 2020.
I think the issues of the wide open desert and tortoise stew are a smokescreen to make concerned desert residents with real issues appear to be hicks so laws can be side stepped and projects rammed down their throats.
Solar Thermal plants generate roughly 25-30% of the total kWh’s they could generate if they were able to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. This percentage is referred to as a “Capacity Factor” and actually very good when you consider the average number of hours per day the sun shines. California requested the EPA to delay Green House emissions regulations as they will impact construction of these plants since they are promoted as zero green house emissions.
When solar insolation declines in the evening, costly thermal storage or a separate fossil fuel usually a natural gas boiler with an efficiency of 33-37% is needed to generate electricity to meet utility demand or PPA requirements. A Gas Turbine Combined Cycle has an efficiency of 56% and is much more efficient manner than ramping up and down a separate natural gas boiler.
With growth in demand flat or even negative in many areas, utilities currently have no need to build totally new power plants. The US Energy Information Agency reports a 3.6% decline in electrical demand for 2009 in addition to a 1.6% decline in demand for 2008. In a good year California, adds three 500 MW power plants yet over 250 projects are proposed.
Conventional CSP Trough solar power stations use a synthetic Heat Transfer Fluid that according to the US Energy Information Agency, poses risks of hazardous spills, difficulty with VOC emissions permitting and requires proper handling and disposal.
More people should question the information they are fed and vetted it them selves. Why? Because the rate or taxpayer will eventually pay for plants that cost 2-3 times conventional and operate at 25-30%. There is a reason solar does not dot the landscape, COST