Zibb

Margery Conner Technical Editor Margery Conner's PowerSource streams the latest developments in electronic power design and related technologies. Follow Margery on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/margeryc.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Power Management Articles

Blog

Monday, June 30, 2008

Feds call halt to new solar plant permits, may give boost to municipal installations

Jun 30 2008 10:44AM | Permalink |Comments (44) |


UPDATED July 3rd: BLM says just kidding, they’re going to “continue accepting applications for future potential solar development on the public lands.” (Thanks for the pointer from Brian Dipert.)

The federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) while it studies the environmental impact of both photovoltaic and solar thermal installations. The BLM expects the study to take about two years. The affected proposed projects would cover more than one million acres and have the potential to power more than 20 million homes.

Solar power installationHere’s what the feds are concerned about:

  • The impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife, such as the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel in California.
  • Water use: Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine.
  • Reclamation of the area and habitat restoration after the plants reach the end of their 20-30 year lifespan.

Let’s pause and consider the recent call by President Bush to Congress to end the federal ban on offshore drilling. We can start offshore drilling again because oil is too expensive, but we can’t start to build more solar plants for at least 2 years? Because solar installations have such a history of environmental problems compared to offshore oil drilling, I guess. [End of ironic pause.]

Back to the solar permits moratorium: Keep in mind that this only applies to federal land, often in remote locations, and remote locations translate to significant transmission losses in getting the power to urban users. Huge remote solar plants in the desert have problems apart from their environmental impact.

This moratorium may help shift future designs to 2 – 10 MWatt municipal solar power plants located close to power users on the periphery of cities. For example, a 2MW municipal solar power plant requires about 10 acres of land to serve a city of 1,000 homes.(see note below)

Here’s a description of the advantages of these relatively small plants from the Nanosolar web site:

“By feeding power directly into the local, medium-voltage distribution grid, [municipal solar power plants] avoid the long-haul, high-voltage transmission grid which is expensive to build and expand, and they also avoid the expense of a substation for down-transforming transmission voltage to municipal voltage. It’s a form of distributed generation but at the wholesale level and it has been determined (using CPUC methodology and data) that there is a locational benefit of about 35% over wholesale power cost. These are real dollars that providers of wholesale distributed power and rate payers can split in a win-win cost advantage.”

My first reaction to the moratorium is to berate the feds – always my default reaction – but through the Law of Unintended Consequences, the moratorium may shift efforts to the more practical and efficient approach of municipal power plants.

Note on solar plant size and efficiency: There’s a discrepancy in solar plant size and efficiency here: According to the BLM the proposed projects, at 1M acres powering 20M homes, imply 1 acre of solar facility per 20 homes. The municipal solar facilities numbers from the Nanosolar web site estimates that 10 acres will power 1,000 homes, or one acre of facility per 100 homes.


Related entries in: Power Sources/Controllers | Solar/Photovoltaics | 


Reader Comments



at 6/30/2008 1:39:37 PM, K8OCL said:
I don't know....it is tough for me to believe the feds could do anything right...even by accident.



at 6/30/2008 1:42:39 PM, phil marchand said:
The practice of describing a power plant with the number of homes it can serve is indeed misleading. It should stop.
How much power does a home use? There is no proper definition of this. The Watt (of MW, KW) is still the best way to go.



at 6/30/2008 1:50:27 PM, Azmat said:
thanks for ironic perspective. Thinking about a typical 2500 sq ft home, and an acre being 50K sq ft >> assuming one home can generate enopugh for itself > looks like 20 homes/ acre would be more like it. Obviously, in this case Nanosolar is trying to do a 'sales pitch' for the municipalities. Of course, there are probably varying assumptions re: conversion efficiency etc. BTW: I have never read of the effect on soil temperature by 'obstructing' sunlight from hitting the soil. The idea place for solar panels would be right ON the road/ highway pavement -- the 'black top' absorbs lots of heat, and could even deliver thermoelectric power after the sun has gone down.



at 6/30/2008 1:52:33 PM, android8T said:
I read a nice article where Spain has installed perhaps the largest solar energy fields..... why is the US Govt taking 2 years to "study" an issue that other countr(ies) likely have the answers to already??
Because the Fed can, and we citizens and instries allow them to diddle for 2 years like that. Should I even ask does the US Govt even have a coherent cohesive energy policy?



at 6/30/2008 1:54:57 PM, JimJarvis said:
I'm with k8ocl... less gov't probably means less stupidity.

If we had any policy makers schooled in technology, we'd realize we need to increase our nuclear power production, and to use the demand dip surplus to make hydrogen to power vehicles.

Everybody has an ox to gore, and I haven't seen evidence of strong leadership since John Kennedy jawboned big steel. It's time for someone to step up and lead; someone who understand s that popularity isn't a complete virtue.

Having said that, it is all to easy to only make marginal calculations on the impact of something like Solar. If you consider the energy it takes to MAKE the panels, the payback isn't so great.

JJ



at 6/30/2008 1:55:41 PM, tbrady said:
The problems listed are insignificant compared to the climatic impact of removing massive amount of thermal energy from one part of the earth's surface and depositing it in another region far away, effectively creating a mini thermal north pole far removed from the real one. This could totally change the earth's wind patterns and move the jet stream to an entirely new pattern.



at 6/30/2008 1:56:17 PM, totally_lost said:
Not suprising ... but probably because of the environmentalist cries about these large solar plants impacting the environment.

There have been no end of complaints about Hydroplants and the damage to water sheds (building storage lakes and down stream impacts).

Wind farms meet similar local compaints.

Somebody ALWAYS has a vested interest AGAINST building renewable energy facilities.



at 6/30/2008 2:12:13 PM, Enraged said:
This is insane and makes no sense at a time when we need ALTERNATE ENERGY SOURCES most desperately. Are the middle east sheiks or the big oil companies paying off the Feds to make these idiotic moves against alternate energy? I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but this one sure smells like one.



at 6/30/2008 2:13:12 PM, S. Davis said:
It appears that the Feds & oil/chemical companies have yet to find a way to tax the SUN. I do believe though that will, in 2 years time, a bill before congress to address this tax.



at 6/30/2008 2:15:33 PM, totally_lost said:
oh, and off shore drilling and production stopped the horrible problem of tar all over the Calif beaches up to the 1970's from natural sepage. And now environmentalists are quick to blame the oil industry when tar ends up on the beaches? They should be praised for stopping that terrible blight.



at 6/30/2008 2:16:10 PM, Noah said:
Federal GOvernment.

Ok why the surprise at the logic they follow?

If it costs to much, does the public no good, can give way to exceed a budget by at least 500%, involve torture or eavesdropping, or taking money from people who actually earned it then you can see the governments hand in things.

If it is profitable, more efficient, hurts the environment less, or cost less of course the government is going to balk at such a thing.

They want job security and they of course know what is best for everything far better than those with actually do what is best for others..


Sheesh. Next thing you know people will be surprised at bankrupt governments or cost over runs....



at 6/30/2008 2:20:11 PM, Meredith Poor said:
A 1Mwh (megawatt-hour) = 1000Kwh (kilowatt-hour) power bill, a number typical for an average home in an average month. At 7 cents per KWH this is $70, at 15 cents it's $150, and if there's a mix of peak and non-peak use the bill might run more like $200 (California). 1000kwh divided by 30 days is 30Kwh per day, divided by 5 hours is 6Kw, divided by 200 (watts per square meter) is 30 meters or 330 square feet. One acre is about 45,000 square feet. Given reduced yields (200 watts is the 'rated' capacity, which may not be entirely real, it's safe to say an acre might power 50 to 100 homes.



at 6/30/2008 2:22:56 PM, Meredith Poor said:
The ideal place for solar panels is over the parking lots of big box retailers, strip malls, shopping centers, public venues (i.e. stadiums, school campuses, etc.) and abandoned industrial sites. These are already in the middle of 'civilization'. Putting stuff out on BLM real estate is silly.



at 6/30/2008 2:24:35 PM, Mike said:
I just read a very good report in the Econimist I think the June 14 the edition. Wind energy is now closing in on coal for cost. Coal is the cheapest form of electric power. Solar is also becoming competitive.Now there is another fed mandated roadblock. For what? Each of these projects goe through an Environmental Impact report anyway. Why have ANOTHER report.
In other word, ALL of the sutdies were done to get a permit to start these plants. Were they flawed? NO or they would not be permitted.
Sort of like no drilling. Were the EIR good enough? Yes then why stop the drilling? Was the engineering and science good enough? Yes then the permits were issued. We have a moratorium???

Beacause someone does not like the answer...TYPICAL POLITICS.




at 6/30/2008 2:26:59 PM, bff said:
What do you expect when you have a President and Vice President who are oil men. They are protecting their turf. If is was up to Bush, and Cheney, there will never be any other energy source than oil. The government has to help the oil companies into becoming energy companies, or get rid of them.



at 6/30/2008 2:41:23 PM, RonW said:
All these parking lot, roof, and highway solar collecting methods sound great.... IF it''s NOT in snow country, and unfortunately there''s a lot of that around! Snow and ice will ruin the "best" of systems. Go nuclear.



at 6/30/2008 2:44:48 PM, totally_lost said:
who cares about the president ... the environmentalists/Democrats have been running our government for a while now ... and it's these environmentalists that are stopping renewable energy solar deployment to protect the turtles. Not the president, or big oil.



at 6/30/2008 2:45:01 PM, Javier said:
If there is no space availabel or if there is space that will impact the environment, then why don't use the roof of actual house & business to locate the solar panels. Why can't each house or business have their own source of solar electricity production sold by feds and be paid as if it was the electric bill?



at 6/30/2008 3:29:20 PM, Lkelley@goruby.com said:
What a great government we have in this country. I have sent in samples to the NREL of multi-crystalline Si solar cells that I have made. They use 1/36th the normal amount of silicon and about 1/36th the amount of electricity to process as compared to any other multi-crystalline silicon solar cells made. My process is absolutely revolutionary and the equipment needed is in-expensive. I have spent about $200,000 of my own money reaching this point. The government will not fund even $1 to look at my process. In fact they don't even feel a need to even confirm the delivery of the samples. I certainly subscribe to the thought of an oil conspiracy



at 6/30/2008 3:37:27 PM, JohnD said:
Those who are really interested in the maths and science might like to visit www.withouthotair.com written by a Cambridge (UK) physicist David MacKay. I have heard him lecture on this topic -very enlightening!!



at 6/30/2008 3:48:38 PM, DougL said:
Building these facilities that far away is insane. Part of the renewable energy system is supposed to also be energy conservation -- high power transmission lines are certainly NOT as efficient as local generation. High voltage transmission makes sense in load balancing but loses too much energy in general. We are better to put together communities with local distributed power generation of all types....seems to me to help national security as well -- bombing one small plant does much less damage than on large plant in a remote area. The country needs to completely rethink power distribution and generation.



at 6/30/2008 3:55:55 PM, desert rat said:
Well, let's hope that the Phoenix mission on Mars finds dilithium crystals on the surface....maybe that's why the oven screens jammed-up when they dumped the soil in a week or so back.

My problem with large solar operations is that they only work for about 1/3 to 1/2 of the day here (AZ)...more at the equator, and less (or nothing for 6 months of the year) as you get close to the poles. I have a 3KW solar system at my ranch up in the high desert, and I can say that it takes a fair amount of monitoring and maintenance (I have 16 LARGE 120 lb lead-acid deep-cycle batteries up there...more than an average couch potato would like maintain). On cloudy days, I have to run my aux generator to charge them up for night power usage, and that's another maintenance issue (change oil, maintain the engine, lube it up, change out the starter battery, etc).

Solar is not a panacea, not by a long shot. But solar with wind as an aux battery charging source makes sense. They work well together, but not standing alone. Usually, when you have sun, you have no wind. When you have wind, you have no sun. That's the way it works in the high desert...



at 6/30/2008 3:59:57 PM, Keith said:
Hmm, time to follow the money, again. which is more eco-friendly? I do like the fact that they are looking at long term effects, but are we (the public) being screwed again to pad someone's pocket?

It seems that all sides - drilling for oil, not letting us extract oil from Alaska, holding up solar, etc. seems to have one net result, doing us in. We need some folks who are nut jobs on one side or the other to guide this stuff. Too many are interested in short term greed at the expense of long term stability.




at 6/30/2008 4:09:28 PM, DM said:
In Texas summers my 3100 sq-ft house uses ~50 kWh/day. Assuming 6 hours of full sun at 100 W/sq-m useful output, the 4k sq-m in an acre can generate about 2400 kWh/day, so it can power 48 of my houses. So 20 houses seems fairly pessimistic, and 100 houses would have to be in cooler climates.







at 6/30/2008 4:43:18 PM, desert rat said:
Well, if any of you want to put a 3KW solar system in, I can tell you it costs about $10/watt or about $30K (for panels and batteries and controllers and inverters...without any aux generators or wind turbines).

On another maintenance point, you have to "equalize" the batteries every 30 days. That means you have to overcharge them for 3 days...up to about 18+VDC. When the water (H2O) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and the lead (Pb) in the batteries react, they form PbSO4 (lead sulfate) on the battery plates. This reduces the surface area of the plates, and reduces your current to your inverter. By overcharging the batteries for 3 days, that forms O2 and H bubbles on the plates, that breaks-off the PbSO4 layers, and keeps them clean and efficient (your solar shed should be two divided sections...never put the batteries in the same room as the controllers with those arcing contact relays, or you will blow yourself up with the accumulation of H and O2 gas). You can do this equalization yourself, but I have a microcontroller that does it for me...it overcharges my bats for the 3 sunny days of every month, whether I am there or not. I have about $1500 worth of controllers on my system to manage the batteries and monitor the system. A 2.5KW inverter with charger will cost you about $3K. Batteries are now about $400 each. On solar panels, I have 32 of them (total of about 800W-1KW of charge current, depending on the sun). The cost of the copper wiring alone, needed for this system, will boggle your mind. I use about 10 gallons of distilled water every quarter...to fill-up the batteries (it''s dry in the high desert). All this keeps my 2200 sq ft house up there powered year round (washer, gas dryer, microwave, sat TV, water pumps, lights, power tools, swamp coolers, attic fans, etc). So, getting into solar is NOT for the weak at heart.



at 6/30/2008 4:50:41 PM, Scott said:
Watch the show, on cable TV's Green Planet channel, "Living with ED". He has solar panels on his home. So does Bill Nye "The Science Guy". On Ed's show he visited Jackson Browne's home, he has both solar and wind power. In California's Inland Empire there are I believe a couple of manufacturing facilities that have their roofs covered with solar panels. Solar power is here, it is just up to us as homeowners and business owners to buy and install them so the Government can take the credit later on.



at 6/30/2008 5:30:17 PM, middle eastern said:
first, take notice that there is a misleading assumption in the article: you cannot avoid

the long-haul, high-voltage transmission grid and the substation for down-transforming

transmission, because the sun doesn''t shine 365 days a year, especially not on a cold stormy

weather, and u must have a backup system.
about the conspiracy theories: does anybody think that it''s an incident that Ossama Bin

Laden comes from an oil producing country?
i am willing to bet anybody that Mr. Ossama is the son that contributed the most to the

wealth of the Bin Laden family!
about government stupidity: the U.S. government should have years ago, declare a

project like the Manhatten Project of WW2, to acheave self independance of energy

production, and to cause all the democratic countries to be free again.




at 6/30/2008 5:30:42 PM, H Grady said:
No nuclear, no oil drilling, now no solar.
The squirrels can relocate a 100yds or
so to accomodate this project and its long term benefit.



at 6/30/2008 5:44:07 PM, Gary McLeod said:
West of Williams AZ is some land with high quality solar radiation with about 2 inches of rain fall, terrible soil, next to the I-40 freeway, the power grid, and not far from Colorado. Some of this land is in private hands. Probably $500 to $5000 an acre. If you can afford $500 for a solar panel, you should be able to afford the land at these bargain prices per acre It is truly said that we try to get off of oil and every where you look there is some little rule (lack of a comprehensive strategy) that hinders progress.



at 6/30/2008 6:38:40 PM, Mannstein said:
Methane is a more potent green house than carbon dioxide. If the environmentalist freaks have their way they'll convince the Feds to introduce a flatulence tax.



at 6/30/2008 7:05:03 PM, desert rat said:
Is it time to go to a decentralized electricity-distribution power structure, rather than a centralized local-govt-mandated-monopoly system? I say yes....let's do it. That way, each region can generate power the most efficient way they can for their inhabitants (solar and wind in the west, methane around Wash, DC, and oil in the NE where there's snow on the ground 8 months of the year). The problem here is that no one generation method can solve the overall problem (except maybe nukes). So, the people in the west will pay 8-cents per KWh, and the people in NH will pay $3.75 per KWh. Life (and power generation costs) are unevenly distributed, like income and brains.



at 7/1/2008 3:23:46 AM, DC-beltway-guy said:
This may seem stupid, bit the BLM is one agency with a terrible record of fiduciary responsibility. ANYTHING they do should be doublechecked. If it were any other agency of the fed gov it would probably not be happening.



at 7/1/2008 7:14:32 AM, W17053 said:
Flatulence / Methane tax? Next there will be a ban on Cows.
That is one reason why some of the ''treaties'' that penalize areas for Methane release are held-up. Farmers would have to reduce herd count to comply with Methane emissions, or loose their farms due to high taxes. Now imagine the cost for anything related to cows (meat, milk, leather, etc.).



at 7/1/2008 8:10:40 AM, Mr. Ben Downthisroad said:
As a naive teen I was emotionally swayed on the side of the environmentalists when the Spotted Owl controversy was in the media. I was convinced that this species could not survive if the logging operation went forward. I felt like an idiot when I saw photos of the owls nesting in K-Mart signs and other man-made structures. I have seen sketches and heard preaching of proposed renewable energy sources since grade school, but the only problem is that the cost was too high with respect to the price of oil. Regardless of efficiency losses, in an era when oil prices and pollution concerns make renwable energy sources a competitive market, do we allow environmental studies of a rodent and a tortise to slow down our progress? I don''t mean to sound cold, but if these species are so sensitive that they cannot live in the desert adjacent to our installations, then "survival of the fittest" rules. We are not speaking of eagles or grizzly bears.



at 7/2/2008 5:53:42 AM, Biff44 said:
Wow, time for a leadership change in Washington. Heads so far up their *** they can not see the sunshine!



at 7/2/2008 1:13:42 PM, Green Mike said:
Who says it is necessary to build solar panels on public property? It doesn't have to be!! Allow private citizens to install on solar panels on their property, pay the private citizen for the power he generates does not use for his own use, and feed the excess power to the grid. Why is this so hard?



at 7/2/2008 3:43:09 PM, RussWells2@aol.com said:
Fer gawds sake, don''t them green freaks know that desert reptiles seek out shade during the day? The problem will be trippin'' over all them turtles under the solar panels!
Nukes & hydro fer base power, coal & gas fer heatin'', solar & wind where feasible, & save oil fer airplanes! It has been shown that an electric airplane can fly no more than an hour on the best possible battery. Cross country trucks on I-40 should be outlawed! Container trains use 1/50th to 1/100th the energy. Personally, I''m trying to design a steam motorcycle w/ sidecar to run on burnt junk mail.




at 7/3/2008 8:43:13 AM, solarmanCT said:
Looks like the pressure caused a change in the BLM mindset:

Solar Moratorium Scrapped, Bureau Of Land Management To Allow New Plants

ERICA WERNER | July 2, 2008 06:21 PM


...Just this week, while officiating at the opening of a solar manufacturing plant in his home state of Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had vowed to get BLM to overturn the moratorium.

Nevada is more than 85 percent federal land and is a prime destination for solar because of its climate and terrain.

"Nevada is the Saudi Arabia of solar energy and is poised to lead a global clean energy revolution, and we need to do all we can to encourage public and private investment in projects to develop this amazing potential," Reid, a Democrat, said in a statement praising BLM's decision...

See

huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/



at 7/3/2008 9:13:52 AM, Meredith Poor said:
The solar potential of an area equivalent to the Nevada Test Site (80 miles x 80 miles) is enough to power the whole country.



at 7/3/2008 3:38:23 PM, Sam said:
You guys should all dig a little deeper and read about Concentrating Solar Power [CSP] methodologies, especailly the Trough method which this proposed plant sounds like. Next the location and keep in mind an old saying in the American SW - "if you take my gun, we have a problem. If you take my water, we have a fight" [not in verbatim but from an unrelated story from 60 minutes]



at 7/8/2008 3:17:18 PM, Ric Adams said:
Solar electric and solar thermal energy recovery processes both decrease the effective albedo (check with wikipedia) of the earth. With constant CO2 concentration and more absorption of energy at the earth's surface, these processes eventually convert by natural processes to LWIR, the part that is blocked by CO2. Wind that carries kinetic energy is converted to LWIR when it is converted to electricity by windmills. Jogging and bicycling release LWIR energy that is blocked by CO2. Release of geothermal energy creates LWIR that is blocked by CO2. The consumption of electric energy, eventually converts it to LWIR. If CO2 is the problem, the only solution is removing the CO2. Forget all this other stuff.



at 7/8/2008 3:19:36 PM, Ric Adams said:
Solar electric and solar thermal energy recovery processes both decrease the effective albedo (check with wikipedia) of the earth. With constant CO2 concentration and more absorption of energy at the earth's surface, these processes eventually convert by natural processes to LWIR, the part that is blocked by CO2. Wind that carries kinetic energy is converted to LWIR when it is converted to electricity by windmills. Jogging and bicycling release LWIR energy that is blocked by CO2. Release of geothermal energy creates LWIR that is blocked by CO2. The consumption of electric energy, eventually converts it to LWIR. If CO2 is the problem, the only solution is removing the CO2. Forget all this other stuff.



at 7/9/2008 5:10:00 AM, Ric Adams said:
The most efficient use of solar energy is distilling water . . .



at 1/22/2009 2:24:17 PM, protn7 said:
Vulvox Inc. has devised high efficiency collectors that can collection 50% -75% total energy from sunlight. And they can retrofit existing solar thermal CSP plants that currently feed energy into the California grid. If the interior department keeps up its moratorium the value of land already designated for solar power plants will be worth alot more and Vulvox's high efficiency collectors will generate twice as much electricity per unit land!
Visit Vulvox
Nanobiotechnology Corporation's web page for more info.

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites