Solar power: California approves first solar thermal project in 20 years

The California Energy Commission approved construction Wednesday on the first solar thermal farm regulators have permitted in two decades.

The Beacon Solar Energy project on the western edge of the Mojave Desert is one of a group of solar roposals hustling to break ground before a federal grant expires at the end of the year.

The 250-megawatt project, to be built and managed by a subsidiary of Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources, got a unanimous go-ahead from state energy regulators. Beacon first applied for approval in 2008.

Sprawling across 2,012 private acres in Kern County, the installation will use parabolic trough solar thermal technology. Long rows of curved mirrors will collect energy from the sun, heating tubes filled with fluid to help run a steam turbine generator.

The Energy Commission last approved a solar thermal project in February 1990, when it allowed a plant in San Bernardino County to move forward. But smaller arrays, which don’t require a license through the commission, have popped up along the way.

Before the Beacon project breaks ground, however, it will likely have to secure a power purchase agreement with a utility. California’s investor-owned utilities will likely fail to reach a statewide mandate to get at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2010.

-- Tiffany Hsu

Photo: Mirrors reflect sunlight onto water-filled pipes, which creates steam and, ultimately, electricity at the 5-megawatt Kimberlina demonstration plant near Bakersfield. Credit: Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times.

Comments

[save the deserts!]

hank and eric are absolutely right. people who are ignorant of the amazing biodiversity in deserts think that killing millions of acres of them so we can keep Chevron, BP and Goldman Sachs rich is a great idea. Yep, Big Energy is still Big Energy and the people who are making money from killing wilderness are still the bad guys.

It is so beyond time that we get a German-style feed in tariff so that WE can own the renewable revolution and make all the changes we need to our EXISTING BUILT ENVIRONMENT instead of killing more and more wilderness for Big Energy profits. We also need to get serious about conservation and efficiency upgrades and PACE loans so there is no upfront cost to installing solar panels on your home or business and the cost of system is more than offset by savings on bills and/or the feed in tariff.

This is a dark day for anyone who cares about the planet, the economy, property values, or democracy.

[Hank]

Has anybody looked at what is already out there at 4-corners off HWY 395? They have to scrape the earth clean and destroy the native flora and fauna (how much poison do they have to use?)to build these monstrous mirror farms. At night in order to keep things running and in winter to keep the water in the tubes from freezing they have to burn fossil fuelto pump heated water thru the system. And where does the water come from and how much is needed to drive the turbines and flow thru the cooling towers? It's pumped from the ever lowering ground water table. Then they have to build evermore intrusive transmission towers to carry the electricity hundreds of miles to where it's needed. The article doesn't say how much this project costs but with that money how many homes and businesses could be fitted with photovoltaic that can easily provide 70 or 80% of their power requirements without having to rape the landscape. I'm all for alternative energy but I really don't think these kind of projects make sense.

[Eric]

The amount of water this plant will consume will cause more harm then benefit provided. Aquifers will be drained and water imported through canals. Solar is a great opportunity but the collectors should be located on existing roof tops in areas where waste water is available for use and the need for electricity exists. This plant will require 2,012 acres be graded and cleared of vegetation(animal habitat), will require hundreds of miles of roads be built, hundreds of miles of towers and power lines must be strung to get the power to the cities where it is needed. Material will be hauled for thousands of miles. Just like Nuclear and Oil all these government subsidized projects cause more damage then benefit. If the government stopped subsidizing oil(gulf wars and subsidies), nuclear(free waste disposal and cheap loans) Ethanol(corn subsidies) and allowed the market to choose we would be using a lot less energy that would be coming from cleaner sources. All the government should do is make sure that every solution is responsible for their byproducts and environmental damage. No need for subsidies, just good old accountability.

[Drew9]

@trajan:
http://www.gstriatum.com/solarenergy/2009/07/solar-energy-companies-in-california/
also these guys in Pasadena with plants in Palmdale:
www.esolar.com

[Drew9]

Hey LKF, got any proof of that? Really, a solar plant has 'tremendous' maintenance costs, more than a nuclear, coal or oil fired steam generation plant? Or are you just spouting off like Glenn and Rush? We need real commentors with real comments, not wingnuts.

[trajan]

This is great but why is the project being built a by a Florida based company? Our leaders should make sure that companies based in California are taking the lead in this industry. This is a great example of the lack of good leadership in this state. Surely somebody in Sacramento has dropped the ball if the first solar thermal project in 20 years is not being built by a company based in California.
Just no excuse for that, the tremendous sun energy consistently raining down over our land is California's greatest resource in a progressive green economy.
Yet we don't have a California company that can build a solar thermal farm?

[LKF]

In the long term this will be a debacle. In the short term a flop. Won't make money, won't support itself, will have tremendous and costly maintenance requirements. But hey, it'll make the libs feel good about themselves. We need real energy producers, not pixie dust producers.

[michelle]

This is such a great opportunity to move away from oil, natural gas and coal to a more eco-friendly form of energy, which will cost us much less in the long-run. Why are we not requiring utility companies to get as much energy as they can from this type of source, and gradually move away from the other forms of energy? Probably not good for business (at least not for the coal and oil industry that have us right where they want us, unless we are willing to fight them).