If all goes well, this 25-megawatt solar plant in Florida won't be America's largest for long, but it's not like we'd pass up the opportunity to let this $150 million facility bask in its own glory (and the sun, if we're being thorough) while it can. The Desoto facility is just one of three solar projects that Florida Power & Light is spearheading, and judging by the proximity of this one (in Arcadia) to the
75-megawatt facility planned for nearby Charlotte County, we'd surmise that the two are linked in some form or fashion. President Obama is expected to show up rocking a set of Kanye glasses underneath a welder's mask when the plant is fired up this Tuesday, and while it'll only provide power to "a fraction" of FP&L's customer base, it'll still generate around twice as much energy as the
second-largest photovoltaic facility in the US of A.
[Thanks, Yossi]
posted Oct 25th 2009 8:33AM
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...)
No one seemed to mind beck's idiocy when he was on Headline News...now that he's on FOX it's like "oh my godz, becktads! Sheep! Rabble! Rabble! Rabble". Bunch of Jingoes, the lot of you.
Actually, everything FPL does get approved by a public regulatory commision. In fact, FPL charges almost 10 dollars a month on every bill towrds "green energy initiatives" With FPL being a monopoly in almost every area it serves, it might as well be taxpayer money. FPL customers are forced into this, whether they agree with it or not.
perhaps you should look into the issue before calling this opinion beckworthy.
You know Beck was a tad nutty when i would watch him on Headline News although he would keep it together most of the time. Now that he's moved to FOX and loosed up around people he feels comfortable with he's a certifiable alarmist nut job. A perfect fit for FOX's fast and loose hyperbolic news style.
If that thing is here in Florida then I sure hope they built it to handle hurricane winds. Nothing worse then having a missing power plant after a hurricane and needing to rebuild.
Why you hating on Obama and his "GREEN" jobs movement man? Dont you know if it's "GREEN", Logic and reason shouldnt stand in the way????
Is that the logic that buried the US 12 feet under the ground as its economy collapsed? That's some good stuff, reminds me of crack cocaine.
According to Florida Power and Light: http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/desoto_faq.shtml#12
"Safety is always our number one concern. FPL will ensure that all equipment conforms to the required structural laws related to wind."
I don't know what the required structural laws are for a solar power plant but if they come anywhere near the specs for a nuclear plant have then all will be ok after a hurricane. The Turkey Point nuclear plant down here survived hurricane Andrew in 1992 and that was a category 5 hurricane with max winds of 175mph. Andrew went right over the plant down here so it got a direct hit. Somehow I don't think the specs for this solar plant come close, the panel mounts look pretty thin and fragile to handle that kind of wind.
Portugal have the largest solar plant in the world :)
$50k per home is an awful lot, but startup projects like this are often expensive. By building these plants at a high cost now, we learn how to do it right.
More important, increased production of panels brings the cost down.
New technologies often have insanely bad cost/benefit ratios, but you can't have established and cheap technologies without starting somewhere.
But $50,000 per home? You'd be paying $320 per month to pay that off in 25 years.
Clearly someone is funneling money into his/her own pocket, a simple boiler and some mirrors don't have to break the bank, unless there's something I don't know.
Where are you idiots getting $50,000 per home to build? From that moron above?
The building cost is about $7500 per house ($150 mil / ~20,000 homes). Each american home uses about 1000W (1 kW) so this should be good for about 20,000 US homes.
Still very expensive, but steps like this are necessary in order to bring the price down further. Look at Wind Turbines. They used to be EXTREMELY expensive, and now they are less expensive to build than nuclear plants per megawatt.
The ignorance on this site is rampant.
Before you start calling people idiots, you might want to actually read the original article.
"The investment isn't cheap: The Desoto project cost $150 million to build and the power it supplies to some 3,000 homes and businesses will represent just a sliver of the 4 million-plus accounts served by the state's largest electric utility."
Then there is something wrong with that calculation because it also says that a similar plant with 48 Megawatts supports around 30,000 homes. Perhaps this is due to the difference in average solar energy in the different areas, but either way the point is plants like this need to be built in order to keep the price of solar panels falling so that eventually (probably sooner rather than later) they will be on par with coal/gas plants in cost and there become an economical option.
@schmitty338
"either way the point is plants like this need to be built in order to keep the price of solar panels falling so that eventually (probably sooner rather than later) they will be on par with coal/gas plants in cost and there become an economical option."
I couldn't agree more.
@schmitty338, before you call people idiots and morons you should probably check your facts. In case you missed my other reply the source of the figures is FPL - "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
this is half exciting, half frightening!
Good to see some "green" progress.
Try to keep up USA, there is a 200MW solar power plant in Spain that is being expanded to 300 MW.
Yes, try to keep up with higher prices in *EVERYTHING*. Using inefficient energy technologies is *not* forward thinking.
are they gonna to clear the remnants of those trees for the solar farm?
The San Onofre nuclear power station in California occupies 84 acres, and produces 2,100MW of energy.
Obama is about to inaugurate the USA's newest AND LARGEST solar facility, the Desoto Solar Energy Center in Arcadia, FL, occupying 180 acres, and producing 25MW of energy (when the sun is shining).
If we extrapolate the land use for a solar facility of this type (in sunny Florida) that could produce the same amount of energy as San Onofre (while the sun is shining), it would have to occupy 15,100 acres, or 180 TIMES the amount of land used by San Onofre. If we assume no extra land for energy storage, and daytime sun that is half of a 24-hr cycle, it would require 31,200 acres of land, or 360 TIMES the size of San Onofre.
Guess which one is renewable...
Great point. Also look at the costs per watt as well.
What people fail to understand is that technology will answer our problem... it just isn't ready for mainstream.
In 1960 a computer took up an entire office building floor, consumed 1600 microwaves worth of power, took 12 people to run, processed 100,000's of transactions per second and costs $100's of millions (adjusted for inflation in today's dollars).
In 2009 a computer can fit inside a wrist watch can process trillions of operations per sec, can run on under 1 watt of energy, allows me to interact with it with a touch pen the size of a needle and costs $150.00.. Oh yeah, it also allows me to communicate with someone half way across the world nearly at the speed of light.
In 2029 a computer will be embedded in our fingernail, use our thermo energy or pulse to power it, will process trillions of operations per millisecond and I'll interact with it using my mind and motion. I'll be able to combine my real environment with live streaming data through augmented reality injected directly into my mind or the cheaper version will force me to wear glasses.
What people do not seem to understand is that our energy consumption today is purely a result of our technology just starting out. The earth is billions of years old, the technology era is decades old.
LED bulbs will give us equal brightness and eventually will be cheaper and longer lasting than CFL or traditional
Computers will run in 1nm or 2nm processes allowing them to be levels of magnitude more efficient while increasing in speed.
New building materials will be used to trap heat or cold inside a building better/longer/cheaper
newer cheaper better, safer methods will be created to produce the smaller amounts of energy we consume
I firmly believe that we will within my lifetime see us each producing our own energy needs on site. Our portability demands it, our technology advancements make it a reality!
Matt, with known reserves we have enough nuclear fuel for the next 130 years using nuclear fission. With the perfection of nuclear fusion that will extend to 600 years. By that time new forms of power will likely have been developed.
Why invest in an inefficient, inconsistent and very expensive form of power when we already have a cheap, efficient and consistent form of power available to us? Anyone who thinks solar power is a good idea is a highly irrational individual who ignores the facts and makes decisions entirely based on their emotions.
Nuclear power has and always will be the future...fission for now...fusion later...
Why does France run on 78% nuclear power, Belgium 54%, Korea 39%, Switzerland 37%, Japan 30% and the USA only have 19%? Politicians should have never caved to the idiotic "Not In My Backyard" minority (mob rule sucks). People always fear what they don't understand.
@solipsist61, Why does the US only get 19% of its power from nuclear? I'm going to assume your a young non-American and really don't know the answer. It has to do with a little thing we like to call Three Mile Island. In 1979 Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear plant, a pressurized water reactor located on the heavily populated east coast of America, still managed to undergo a partial core meltdown due to a secondary systems failure followed by operator error. Luckily the containment building held, but Americans were rightfully scared shitless that it could happen in the first place. Over 13 million curies of radioactive gases were released, and that's just the "official" number, so take it with a grain of salt. It dealt a death blow to the US nuclear industry. Plants under construction were completed but no new permits or construction has taken place until just recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/three/filmmore/description.html
@solipsist61, BTW while the US only generates 19~20% of it's electricity from nuclear... the US is still the largest producer of nuclear energy in the world. The US currently produces about 28~30% of the worlds nuclear energy. France produces 18%, and Japan is the third largest supplier at 12%. So while the US has plenty of room for domestic growth our current production capacity isn't exactly shabby.
@WmPenn
I'm a nuclear engineer...and you are not as smart/informed as you think you are. More books, less internet.
Wow, no way that is just way too cool. Itd be nice if such resources could LOWER power bills and be of benefit to the people!
Wow what a bunch of optimists. I don't know about you guys, but I'm I'll be waiting for the Fark article about some drunk bumpkin ruining the whole thing with his F-150.
Glad to see a fellow Farker here
drjekel_mrhyde
I'm not sure I understand. $6/watt just to build the place? Plus I can promise you that 25 megawatt is it's peak capacity, middle of the summer, no clouds, bright sunny day.
I love the idea of renewable energy but it sure seems like we (society) is throwing money at the wrong thing right now. As coal/oil etc get more expensive to the point where renewable makes sense... a whole new concept of renewable energy will likely be available making these "expensive short term solutions" silly. Billions and Billions down the whole.
Alright, let's assume that electricity costs $.10 a kilowatt hour. (It doesn't) And lets assume that this plant runs at full capacity 24/7/365.
It produces 25000 kilowatts/hour * .10 kilowatt = $2500 an hour. So that's $60k a day and $21 million annually. Let's also assume that the sun in florida shines brightly for 24 hours a day. That would take them a bit over 7 years to recoup their investment, assuming that they make 100% profits and have no employees, maintenance, or taxes to pay.
Lets then consider that most of these numbers are massively bloated, and that the actual payoff-cost/time ratio is more like 50-100 years, and that in the next 5 years, we'll have solar panels that are 10 times as efficient as the ones they're using here.
Until solar technology becomes efficient and cheaper (which it WILL in the next few years), it is not worth it.
The problem is, costs wont come down, and efficiency wont improve unless there is a market for the technology.
New(ish) technology is rarely cheap. Mass adoption is what brings the cost down.
The tech has been continually improving without mass adoption. They likely get government research grants and the like. In this industry, mass adoption means spending billions of dollars on long-term infrastructure. So since the tech is currently on a blind path of improvement, a new solar farm (like this one) is obsolete within a few years, and likely considered useless within the decade.
I have been to Florida many times and it was raining a lot.
Yeah, it rains just about every day. But it needs to with all of those melting toupees. The time it spends raining is incomparable to the time it spends being sunny as hell.
This part of Florida basically has 2 seasons, a rainy season and a dry season. During the rainy season which runs late May to mid October it's rarely overcast throughout the day. Usually you'll see a short torrential downpour or two throughout the day and 20 minutes later it's bright and sunny out again.
You know, only a matter of time before this 'green energy' isn't so fancy anymore. I'm sure 20 years from now, if not sooner, people will not want acres upon acres taken up with mere solar panels. Imagine how much affordable housing you could have had instead!
I am trying to be serious though. I think solar is a great idea but I question how long it will last.
Yes, just what Florida needs, another 180 acres of homes to power. ;) Anyway it's not like the land won't be valuable property to redevelop 20 yrs from now. Actually reselling the land at the end of the plants useful life might offset a good deal of their initial investment.
Can't wait to fly over it. So cool.
Sebring to Wauchula to Arcadia!
(Cheap avgas at Wauchula ;)
I'm just wondering, oh sure Solar and Wind are CLEAN and all, I'm not sure about building them in the first place, BUT are you going to be sitting in the DARK at home when the sun goes down and/or the wind stops blowing??? That's the problem with these. You need RELIABLE power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!!! The ONLY clean reliable Energy at this time is Nuclear Power. Not only that, but the U.S. like some other countries also needs the Ability to Reprocess the so called waste, which isn't waste, but very Valuable and can be Reused. Instead the ECO Wacko's stopped all of that and instead we ended up burning a whole lot more COAL which throws up TONS of Radioactive garbage into the Air. Even the Founder of Green Piece who had to LEAVE because it was taken over by Lawyers now supports Nuclear Power Plants.
Most of these solar concentrator plants store molten salt that is heated up during the day and then used to make power at night when the sun isn't there.
Bicycles with generators in every US home to power TVs, games and computers. No exercise, no electrons.
Helps solve the energy problem, the education problem, the obesity problem and the health problem. Put a price savings on that - it would be enormous.
Naaawww ....never mind!
honestly that doesn't look that big. I'm a bit surprised there isn't like a 40 square mile one somewhere like in the desert in arizona or something.
Maybe they should give Obama the National Solar Panel President of the Year Award for building this solar plant. The speed to which this plant was built should be rewarded. His vision and green initiatives helped get it built.
When did they start this plant?
"Construction of the plant is planned to begin during the fourth quarter of 2008 with an in-service date during the second quarter of 2010" - FPL
"Florida Power & Light Company announced today that it expects the DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Arcadia, Fla., to begin delivering electricity to customers later this month – ahead of schedule." - FPL Oct. 2009
It took less then a year to build the plant. Its construction provided employment for 400 people at a time when unemployment in Desoto county is 11.3%. The plant will generate about $2 million in annual taxes for Desoto County which is a really great for them. Times are hard down here and county budgets are hurting.
It is a secondary power generation system that will provide generating capacity during daytime peak demand when it is most needed. The fact it was more expensive then other options is offset by the fact it fills this niche need nicely, it was able to be put online very quickly, will require very few employees to operate, and didn't need permitting for water sources etc. like other options would have.
It's clean emission free power to the residents of Desoto County. While it's true that solar cell manufacturing causes a lot of pollution somewhere else... my guess is the locals don't really give a damned about that. What matters to them is the air in their back yard is just as crisp and clean as it was before they built the plant.
The 180 acres of land is in a rural area. If it was being used for anything it was either cattle grazing or citrus groves. When the power plant is phased out the land can be put to other uses without needing a lot of expensive remediation. During the time the plant is in operation the land value will probably sky rocket too.
No need to give Obama an award for it... but then there's no need to give GW one either. You know he would have showed up and pumped some hands before giving some bogus "green" pitch for the cameras too. That's what politicians do.
Wow that's bad, I bet the company who built it is glad to have made good money. Everyone who wants to build solar plants should wait for the future technology thats still being developed. That plant costs $6 per watt.... and with the power it produces it won't pay for its initial cost for 250 years. And then there's maintenance costs on top of that. Future solar tech aims to get below $2 per watt, while making much more efficient use of land.
Awesome..... I can't wait until there isn't such thing as "pristine nature" that real environmentalists always whine about. All this man made junk like solar power is going to scar every countryside just like windmills are going to scar every bump of dirt above ground level. Its going to be great! Like driving through a oil field when they are working and then an every day junkyard after half of it starts breaking down and it becomes to expensive to fix. Just like California hill country that all those pansies used to talk about with all the stupid grizzly bears and stuff that don't exist there anymore either because man snubbed them out. Just imagine since there are more than 17000 generators in the United States (almost all plants have several of those generators in one facility). We need to produce 1,031,978 MW in the winter for the united states right now.
Lets do the math here:
1,031,978 MW / 25 MW = 41,280 of these power plants (if the sun was always shining)
41,280 solar plants * 180 acres = 7,430,241.6 acres total
Cool right? but we still need more to account for night time and charging toxic batteries.. FUCK YEAH!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
HELLS YEAH! FUCK NATURE! FUCK THE HABITAT! GO OBAMA! GO AL GORE! GO DEMOCRATS!