America's (newest) largest solar plant set to go live in Florida
By Darren Murph 
posted October 25th 2009 8:33AM
posted October 25th 2009 8:33AM
[Thanks, Yossi]
posted October 25th 2009 8:33AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Don't they call Florida the "Rainfall State"
Why you making fun of Kanye? Is it because he prefers Nokia to Apple?
Sunshine State. So close.
Yeah, that's why they're building one 12 times bigger here in Arizona. Just sold the entire output of the plant to California. All the permits are in, construction starts very soon. The cool part is that it's replacing a small chunk of farmland, so what little water will be used for operations and cleaning the panels will actually be less than the farming was. So they can't even complain about that. And there's another huge plant about this same size about 30 miles down the road also in the planning stages.
http://www.aguacalientesolarproject.com/secondary.asp?id=1
I live in Florida, and if this doesn't mean cheaper electricity bills, IDC
Well you'd think it would be cheaper because it SHOULD take less work to harness and distribute the energy. However, I doubt they're doing this to make things cheaper for people. It's most likely cheaper to run, and easier to profit from and a closer-to-finite resource. Just another way to ensure they'll be getting your moneys for some time.
Solar power is in fact extremely expensive, and almost always not economical. This is most likely a purely PR move. I wouldn't expect lower bills at all.
Let's see, $150 Million to build. Will power at most, 3,000 homes. That's at least $50,000 per house. Throw in finance cost, taxes and the high yearly maintenance cost... Yep, it's going to save you a ton of money.
No shit eh? So who are the people who decided to build this with taxpayer money responsible to? Oh right, "the people" who haven't collectively agreed on anything since civilization began.
@ bradsh - I agree with you it's probably for PR, but it's going to do the opposite of what they wanted once people are educated about this and know it's a waste of time and resources. Hopefully that next, bigger plant that's scheduled hasn't been started yet :P
If it's a PR stunt then it is a long term one. FPL Group (parent company of Florida Power and Light) has the largest percentage of wind farms in North America and largest provider of solar electricity in the world ( http://www.nexteraenergyresources.com/content/environment/renewable.shtml )
@Jay Adams,
Where are you getting your numbers? That would mean the average home in uses 8300 Watts, which, even in the wasteful USA, is not true. The average american home uses about 1kW, maybe a little more in florida due to the constant A/C. So this means this will power around 20 000- 25 000 homes. Still expensive, yes, but WAY better than coal/gas/etc. etc. and these small expensive steps are needed for the technology to become more mainstream and affordable.
Do you think the first coal powered plant was cheap? Definitely not. It was only after production was very high and pioneering projects such as this solar plant took those first risky, expensive steps that it became affordable and widespread. We have to start somewhere.
@Schmitty:
Problem is, solar is incredibly inefficient. Infrastructure like this shouldn't be wasting space until it can provide a meaningful amount of energy. Didn't Sharp just make a lot of hoopla in announcing 35% efficiency? So combine low efficiency with large space requirements, low output, continually upgrading tech (just a few years ago efficiency was at 18%), and you have an energy production method that should NOT be in widespread implementation.
We installed the first gen coal plants because that was the only thing out there - we have options now, and we should not spend the money on installing large solar farms until it is an actual cost effective solution. We should still put money into research, since a high efficiency solar cell could be the answer to many problems, but a new solar plant today will be completely obsolete within the decade.
@Tommy five
Do you know that the efficiency of coal plants in the US are around 30%? Some of the newer ones about 35%. This is also very low efficiency, but also combined with huge outputs of greenhouse gases, acid-rain causing nitrates/sulfates, mercury, etc.etc. Building more coal plants should be avoided at ALL costs, yet there are many still being built in the US. Solar plants, even relatively small ones like this are a necessary step towards more widespread use.
@schmitty338 I gather the source of those numbers is Florida Power & Light - "Annual estimated generation will be about 42,000 megawatt-hours or enough power to serve about 3,000 homes" http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/desoto.shtml
@schmitty:
Yes, but coal maintains that efficiency even when the sun doesn't shine. It's also vastly cheaper to implement. I agree that coal plants shouldn't be built any more, but I still contest that solar shouldn't either. You speak of all those chemicals that coal plants output, but what does the solar plant require to store energy to output during hours it's not producing? Those energy storage systems have lots of bad chemicals in them that need to be disposed and recycled at some point. It's an incredibly expensive power alternative that requires tons of space and will be easily outpaced within a few years. Let's wait a little while until the tech gains begin to plateau.
What WILL make a huge difference are the two new nuclear reactors being planned and built near Crystal River by Progress Energy. But that won't get nearly as much hoopla even though it deserves far more...
@Tommy Five, "You speak of all those chemicals that coal plants output, but what does the solar plant require to store energy to output during hours it's not producing?", OK, what makes you think they are going to store the energy for later use? Florida's peak generating capacity demand is during the day (even more so on hot sunny days) when everyone is running their air conditioners. That's exactly the time of day a plant like this is at capacity and contributing to the grid. The reality is we've already got enough nuclear and coal power to meet off peak demand in Florida.
You guys must have a ton of free space down there!
We'll do it LIVE!!!
This is a laudable effort. Whilst it may not mean cheaper electricity, it does mean what you buy and use will be a tiny fraction less polluting overall.
Regretttably this is not the whole picture. Everyone is on about clean or alternative or renewablem is not this. energy sources like this one but the real prob The real problem is the amount of energy we all use. It boils (pun not intended - hehe) down to the problem of waste heat. The more energy we use, of any type, the more waste heat we generate. Ultimately this is what will get us in the end.
I am not a green weenie. Rather I am just a guy who wants his grandchildren to have a decent place to live when they grow up.
The idea that PV solar is green is nuts--and I speak as somebody with 4.7Kw on his garage right now. The energy required to grow those crystals and manufacture arrays is very significant. And do you think that the mass production of crystalline silicon is a pollution-free industry? Sorry, but the only way to have energy with which to muddle through the forseeable future entails undesirable byproducts. Grow up.
I have only one thing to say:
I have the POOOWWWWEEEERRRRR!
Sorry, I can't read your advert. It appears to be too transparent.
I am not spider man but still my sixth sense is saying me that it is a stupid idea to build a solar plant in the humid Florida instead to build in the desert.
Or may be they choose to build it in Florida because the governor is corrupt.
It has nothing to do with the governor. Being a Florida resident I'd much rather have this (and many more of them) than coal or nuclear. $50,000 per house is crazy though. I could do my house for half of that with the federal subsidy.
Let me echo the words of the psychotic enviro nuts.
"But it's GREEN and It helps mother EARTHHHHHH!!!!!!"
@driven98
If you are using a government subsidy then that is PART of the cost. Just because YOU didn't have to fork it over doesn't make it magically disappear.
Desert = dust and sand = very, very scratched glass panels = very low efficiency. Plus if there are any mechanical parts in the system they tend to get damaged very fast in dusty and sand conditions.
They'll earn this puppy back in 12 years.. And It's going to be making money in no time. :D
As long as a hurricane doesn't rip it to shreds within the next 12 years... and it''ll also border "lighting alley" which is the most active lightning corridor in the US. Always things to consider when building solar in the "Sunshine State". But this is still preferable to (to me anyway) then another nuclear reactor within 100 miles of my home, and yes FPL is building more of those too. In their own words - "FPL projects a need for 8350 MW of new generation by 2020 due to customer growth and the expiration of existing purchased power agreements. To meet the need, FPL plans to build the two new nuclear units, increase capacity at existing nuclear facilities, and expand natural gas combined cycle capacity, as well as increase renewable generation and demand-side management programs."
fear of having a nuclear reactor near your home is totally irrational. they're very safe.
Lets put one near your house, see how you like it...
It would put everyone on edge having one around their home. In Australia, they are having a LOT of trouble with NIMBY, so much so they can't get one up and running. It's bad enough they want to build a gas plant 30km in direct line of sight from my front door.
@copeys
Sure, go ahead and build one near my house. I actually wouldn't mind at all, and would be secure knowing that I'll have safe, clean electricity for millions of years to come.
@copey
You can see 30km away from your front door? That is awesome! If I could see that far, I'd be particular about any big ugly facilities being built in my view.
The nuclear reactors will easily survive the frequent hurricanes.
Acres and acres of expensive, fragile glass? No so well. There is a reason why you generally think of places like Arizona, New Mexico, and California when you think about big solar arrays.
Hurricanes and tornadoes in Florida will be giving the trailer parks a break this year; they have a better target....
How long will it take to repay the 150 million?
How long will the panel lasts and how much does it cost to replace the entire set?
How can it make $$$ if its constantly replacing solar panels?
What is the total 10 year cost projection?
How many of these sites would be needed to power FP&L's entire customer base?
Hmmm something just doesnt add up. I smell the old rope a dope and subsidized with my tax dollars charade happening again!
Panels usually last 25 + years and the price is going down because of a drastic increase in production.
25 years is the stated life span but every year a panel degrades and becomes less efficient.
The battery in my old laptop has lasted 4 years but it only holds a charge for 20 minutes now. Same thing with solar panels.
'last' for a solar panel is reducing the throughput to 80% from the rated output. (depending on local laws)
@Jay: Oh yes, solar cells obviously have an identical failure profile to lithium-ion batteries! Clearly that follows directly because the technology is closely related! (Where by 'closely related' I mean 'totally different'.)
Also, hate to break it to you, but li-ion cells usually aren't expected to last more than about 3 years, so the 'performance' of your laptop is expected; if solar cells are quoted at 25 and if by some miracle they did coincidentally follow the same failure profile, you'd only expect them to get that bad by 33...
As for the new plant, this is cool and all - it's great to see any kind of advance on renewable energy deployment.
That said, for large-scale plants, isn't concentrated solar thermal (mirrors direct sun, heat up water, drive turbines) rather more efficient than PV? PV is great on a small or medium scale (e.g. on roofs of houses/large buildings) but if you have a dedicated multi-acre site, wouldn't thermal be a better bet? Maybe I read that wrong, I dunno.
I was thinking, those plants that use mirror to focus the sun, those mirrors can turn, and the sun is parallel rays, so I wonder if you could make the focuspoint land on a plane or a satellite or the moon and fry things, especially if you'd use several plants like that.
Impromptu death ray.
I guess it depends if the mirrors are pre-curved a lot.
Mythbusters did this one already.
Forget giant death lasers, black holes are the solar power dooms day device of the future =D
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/17/first-electromagnetic-black-hole-built-on-earth-nobody-raps-a/
True mythbusters did the mirror thing but they tried it with a boat to mimic ancient greek conditions, and the university team jumped in but they too had a limited setup compared to a complete powerstation and its high precision aiming and large mirrors.
As for the 'black hole', I think I expressed my thought on that clearly in that thread already.
Mythbusters also said bullets fired into the air can't come back down and kill people. Bunch of hacks.
@gamechld - busted, get it right you hack! ;) Mythbusters - "Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.
(busted / plausible / confirmed)
In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time."
^Ah, I see. I had only actually heard second hand that Mythbusters said it was non lethal, I did not actually see that episode. I stand corrected.
THERE GOES OUR FREAKING TAX MONEY!
That's a private project (i.e. not government) ...
(Beck sheep are everywhere...)