America's (newest) largest solar plant set to go live in Florida

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]

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 25th 2009 10:08PM]

The land area of the US is 2.4 billion (2,400,000,000) acres. So, even given your (outlandish) assumptions, we are talking about three-tenths of 1% of the land area of the country.

Stop hyperventilating.

[esarphie Posted Oct 25th 2009 11:39PM]

25 megawatts? Just think, place 12 of these side by side and you'll generate as much as a coal plant, or a small gas plant, or nuclear reactor.

Then again, not a single solar facility generates anything near to its rating, so in practice, unless this one is much better than previous installations you'll get 8-12 megawatts.

I like solar power in theory... but rushing out technology before it makes real sense is a huge waste.

[WmPenn Posted Oct 26th 2009 8:26AM]

No need to speculate on what it's actual output will be. FPL flat out says they only expect the installation to produce 42,000 megawatt-hours/year. While it's not intended to be a primary power source that will run 24 hours a day and supply dedicated customers, it is the equivelent of providing 3000 homes with 1,166 kWh/month. It is what it is...

[LaneHussey Posted Oct 26th 2009 2:00PM]

One Word....HURRICANES!

[LaneHussey Posted Oct 26th 2009 2:01PM]

One Word...HURRICANES!

[mjlaris Posted Oct 26th 2009 7:02PM]

Does anyone here realize how outragiously expensive this is! A typical nuclear power plant is 1000 MWe. At the price for this 25 MWe unit, an equivelant sized plant would be $6 billion, or about twice what a nuclear power plant costs. In addition, a nuclear power plant will last at least 60 years; I think 20 years for this solar plant would be pushing it. There are many more productive way to invest our money. Passive solar power is one option that is rearly considered but couls save millions of dollars and MWes.

Mark

[(Unverified) Posted Oct 27th 2009 6:10PM]

All I have to say is that coal is needed because we have a lot of of and it is cheap. We just need to find ways to make it more environmentally friendly. Also, I am a huge supporter of solar, wind, tide, wave, and nuclear power. For solar, wind, tide, and wave some plants should be built now just to get a feel for how a plant would function and to discover how to make them better. Also, the more we out it off the worse our energy situation will become. However, for these energy sources, especially solar, there should be more research done before many large-scale plants should be built because there are new technologies and advancements happening in this field all the time so it would be a waste, until the technology growth begins to slow down. Finally, I am not sure why the are not more nuclear power plants, because there are some new technologies being developed that make them safer and more efficient. Plus they were already a great energy source they were just improved on.