Why California Built The World's Largest Solar Farm
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 09. 2022
- This is the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, One of the largest solar farms in the world. The project was first announced back in 2011, and was completed in 2015. The entire solar farm generates enough electricity to power more than 150,000 homes throughout California. While many have praised the projects' success in California, and called for more Solar energy projects to be built, there are still a number of disadvantages that come along with this technology.
Even after California has invested tens of Billions of Dollars into solar energy, the entire state still faces electricity shortages as a result of transitioning away from fossil fuels, and some may question if this investment into solar energy truly makes sense.
Thanks for watching, Subscribe if you enjoyed the video-
#california #drought #solar © 2023 Arkive Productions LLC
This panel can put out close to 100 watts czcams.com/users/postUgkxOqI2yqX0XVrhR2BMJciTWrHJpG8FhJyg when positioned in the appropriate southernly direction, tilted to the optimal angle for your latitude/date, and connected to a higher capacity device than a 500. The built in kickstand angle is a fixed at 50 degrees. Up to 20% more power can be output by selecting the actual date and latitude optimal angle.The 500 will only input 3.5A maximum at 18 volts for 63 watts. Some of the excess power from the panel can be fed into a USB battery bank, charged directly from the panel while also charging a 500. This will allow you to harvest as much as 63 + 15 = 78 watts.If this panel is used to charge a larger device, such as the power station, then its full output potential can be realized.
There was nothing in this report to suggest in any way that CA solar investments have been a failure. Hence the title is knowingly deceptive. On one particular point; "there is some local criticism" that solar farms may reduce the value of nearby residents' property values. Excuse me, but what power generating facility would NOT do that? In fact, solar farms would have likely the least adverse affect on local property values of any power-generating model. This report is clearly designed to try to reach a disingenuous conclusion, and does a lousy job of it.
There are 1500 power plants in California. The installation of one solar plant didn't single handedly solve all of California's energy issues. So that means it's a failure. Got it.
@@joels7605 I assume you're joking. I don't think anybody imagined that a single solar plant would power all of California's twenty million homes.
In addition the reason they put it out in the middle of nowhere is because land is the cheapest and otherwise least useful out there! This report or whatever its trying to be was very poorly done!
Yeah, they couldn't switch to 100% renewable energy. They couldn't reach their goal so isn't that a failure?
Yep, definitely click bait. People are more attracted to bad news than good.
Can somebody finally explain to me why this was a failure?
From the desc: "Even after California has invested tens of Billions of Dollars into solar energy, the entire state still faces electricity shortages as a result of transitioning away from fossil fuels, and some ma question if this investment into solar energy truly makes sense. "
lol, that's not the solar panels fault.
@@TheBooban No, it is the Democrat Lawmakers fault for investing in a technology that is not capable of replacing our current fossil fuel system while at the same time gutting the fossil fuel industry.
Obviously click bait and a waste of time
According to recent reports, the state is still faces many electricity shortages even after billions of dollars have been spent on Solar Energy. You can see some of the sources here-
bloom.bg/3QcuBHH
lat.ms/3TI5yzq
With these factors in mind, The Project has not been as effective as it was initially expected to be, leaving the state to face even more electricity shortages.
@@ArkiveYT Might also be due to increasing population. For a population of more than 40 Million it ssems quite normal to spend billions for energy supply. And California is the perfect place for solar panels.
The most expensive part of green energy is storage batteries. Just to keep one 1500 square foot home under power 24/7 in mid summer requires a battery worth $20,000. The inverters and solar panels are the cheap part. Then keep in mind that they probably need to be replaced in 20 years. In most places, like California the “grid tied” solar incentives have greatly diminished with too restrictive conditions to be worth doing when you run all the numbers especially long term.
SOLAR=Just turn off your lights
Economies of scale. The same reason small power production facilities i.e. private cogeneration failed. The same reason large photovoltaic plants are more economic than residential plants.
@@lrayvick
The key is the battery. Currently Lifepo4 chemistry is the best for stationary energy storage. The problem is it’s dominated by China. Despite Biden is starting a new energy project, he’s still China’s pet and won’t interfere their monopolies. We will however waste money in the wrong direction further weakening the economy. Even France, Germany and England have awakened realizing that depending on gas from Russia and green energy is going to freeze their population.
Short term, Nuclear is the only good option. Looking out 50 years, solar-thermal, photovoltaic, and wind are the only options; however it will take major advances in storage and very long distance transmission between continents to enable us to rely solely on the sun.
However filling the deserts with solar will have major environmental and political implications some of them positive.
@@lrayvick
Absolutely! I’m very pro nuclear, but our current operational plants scare the heck out of me. Many have had their license renewed and are operating more than twice design life. Some are the same model as Fukushima’s. I believe only one new plant has come on line in the last 20 years. Instead they throw money at the fusion folly and if the ever manage to get it working, no community could afford one. If you think green energy is expensive, fusion says hold my beer.
In the late seventies Oak Ridge National Laboratories build a successful Thorium reactor (LFTR). Much safer, cheaper fuel, can consume nuclear waste and reduce most of the long term radioactive danger. Politics, uranium lobbyist killed and buried the project for years. Enter the freedom of information act. Still the politics but China is running with our ideas and patenting them.
Solar alone is not the answer. Hydro alone is not the answer. Wind alone is not the answer. Nuclear alone is not the answer. It's all working together plus other ways ( burn trash like other countries ) instead of bearing it in landfills. Options versatility the answer
Energy diversity is the answer.
WHERE IS THE FAILURE! This facility works as designed and does what it's supposed to do. How is this a failure? It touched briefly on the potential disadvantages of large solar plants, neither of which affect this facility... I can only assume that the title was changed to game the algorithm...
I believe the term is called "clickbait"! I'm glad I'm not the only one as outraged. I'll be banning this channel.
this video was a failure
I billion dollars to feed 160,000 homes-that's the biggest failure.
There are 1,000,000 homes in the City of Los Angeles. The true life of a solar panel is 15 years, so every 15 years all the panel will need to be replaced. On the other hand, a billion dollars would build a power plant that could serve many more homes and last for 50+ years, without endangering the habitat of thousands of desert species.
@@michaelgrahek5061 The future replacement panels will likely be much better.
All those overpriced solar cells will be toxic waste, contaminating groundwater in just a few years. More Taxpayer money, down the drain. 👎🏿👎🏿
$1.4 billion costs to build, divided by 160,000 homes is less than $9,000 per household. My 7.2 kwatt system with 18 solar panels costs me about $26,000 before 26% tax break. The costs per house is pretty good. I like the idea of putting solar panels above the California aquaduct, which would reduce water loss to evaporation and also would generate electricity and not take up more land.
At the utility we used to use 1 KW/household i.e. a 100 MW plant would cover the needs of 100000 homes. Your system illustrates the absurdity of residential solar. The only way it sort of works is because you use the utility as a sort of battery to "store" your excess which is "returned" to when when the sun isn't shining. If the CPUC didn't require the utilities to provide that subsidy your installation would be a net loss to you after allocating the installation and maineanance costs to your average kwhr use.
Your posts proves why solar can’t work. It cannot produce enough electricity to be profitable. Tax breaks aren’t profit. Economics always wins out over policy.
8kw solar with 27kwh tesla power wall, $32k before tax break.
@@jaybee3165 30 year payback. It’s moronic.
@@lrayvick I live in the desert. Have a 2800 sq. ft. house with 10 foot ceilings. Without solar, summer electric bills would run from $300 to $500 a month. We have duel electric ovens. My electric monthly electric bill is $0 to $12 a month. I will get a refund of extra electricity produce, ( wholesale price) after a year. I figure my electric bill would average $2,000 a year. With federal tax credit, my payback should be 8 - 10 years. The costs of electricity will only go up. My excess electricity now could power an electric vehicle, day only as I don't have batteries.
Didn't talk about the huge carbon footprint and ecological effects of mining needed in order to build solar panels
Less than that of coal and oil refining uses more cobalt than Li batteries.
Honestly the entire east and west electrical grid needs a major upgrade.
When it's cloudy or dark when most power is needed you get nothing.
They keep building more solar farms and more solar farms and the lights still go out at night.....can't figure it out.
A energy grid run entirely on solar power is one of the most comical plans I ever come across.
Yes, as the single and total producer of electric power for California's electrical needs, this one solar farm is not meeting that goal. It was never intended to do so. California has always relied upon hydropower to supply a large part of the electrical generation required for this state.
Unfortunately, the state is in the 20th (or more) year of the worst drought in 2,000 years reducing the production of this form of generation. Also, as no federal permanent storage site for radioactive waste material has been developed, CA has begun to eliminate nuclear-powered electrical energy generation here. Carbon-fueled electrical generation has also been discouraged if not eliminated to slow the creation of greenhouse gasses.
Fortunately for California, many state-run institutions, private institutions, private businesses, and homeowners have installed solar power arrays to meet much if not all of their electrical needs. The growth in solar-powered electrical generation is constantly increasing throughout California. This $1.5 billion solar array is a large step in that direction, but not the only or final step.
No... they have shut down the nuclear power plants for absolutely no reason. Nuclear waste can be and should be stored permanently on site of any nuclear power plant as that is the safest and most practical way to handle such material. They have chosen to shut down the plants due to lack of knowledge and fear.
@@definitelynotcole Since you know better than the power companies that run the nuclear power plants in CA why don’t you start your own reactor?
@@stevyd when did I say I know better. They agree with me.
One issue that isn't discussed, that is the conversion of DC voltage, created by the solar panels and also the batteries, to AC power. Conversion is done with devices called "Inverters". Power is actually lost thru this process. I recall seeing a video where it shows how high temperatures will negatively affect the Panels.
Recent reports have detailed that California still faces electricity shortages even after billions of dollars have been invested into solar energy. As a result of these factors, I considered the billion dollar project somewhat of a failure.
-bloom.bg/3QcuBHH
Subscribe if you enjoyed the video
The real conversations happening in the comments is incredible. You have a great channel and a great audience!
I accidentally backfed a solar panel with battery power, and to my surprise, sunlight came out of the panel.
I purchased magic beans, and a huge stalk grew out where I planted it. Someday, I'm going to get the nerve to climb it and find the golden goose.
I've driven by this and seen it in person. Quite a sight to see! It looks like a synthetic ocean glimmering in the sunlight.
And it will eventually be in a landfill.
@@timothykeith1367 wont everything?
Large expanses of city could have solar on the roofs without consuming anymore land. Also less transmission losses
I think a lot of people will realize this is the appropriate way to do it. Generate power where you need it. If batteries improve significantly, solar becomes a clear winner. These large scale projects, though, don't make all that much sense. It's easier to keep it all small and local, IMO.
@@KevinKimmich44024 Yes indeed!! Once manufactured, solar panels have no inherent economy of scale, a square foot on my roof yields the same as anywhere else. It breaks the industrial model's justification for bigger is better. The only reason for megaprojects is more money for rich investors.
@@philliplamoureux9489 yeah, exactly. This doesn't seem to be widely recognized yet... Really everyone ends up being energy self sufficient... The grid is maybe a small thing that provides backup power at that point rather than 200,000 additional miles of HV lines so investors can "make money". I totally agree... I hope more people begin to understand this. I only recently figure that out myself.
@@KevinKimmich44024 There couldn't be a better 'power to the people' democratic reality than people actually having their own electrical and solar heat power supply. The grid might still be needed for industry, but the residential, and light commercial sectors, as well as personal transportation sectors can all be self fueled and self sustaining. The key is making a low voltage DC standard that allows a matched voltage from panels to various appliances, lighting and equipment to use the DC directly without going through an AC conversion. This would solve a lot of problems, waste and cost, as the inverter is the pricey, short-lived, energy wasting, heat generating, and occasional fire hazard in the solar power system if you need AC, instead of just utilizing the DC direct.
@@philliplamoureux9489 there is nothing stopping you from doing that
It is very hard for solar farms to be "failures." It doesn't sound like this is an exception. Solar panels generate predictable volumes of energy. In some cases there are problems with transmission. Doesn't sound like this is the case here. Solar energy is roughly 1/5 the cost of energy generated by Natural Gas and 1/7 the cost of coal generation. Of course us clean. There are no emissions -- no fires, extreme wind events, etc. So this is a seriously misleading video.
True
Ha ha! Youve been brainwashed. The CA grid is failing and you think its because solar power is cheaper than coal and NG.
I am to understand you haven't bought any of these panels, nor the special mounting brackets, nor the wiring to hook them all up, not figured in any labor, not figured in the cost of the controllers that turn dc current into ac current, the many fuses, breakers and other things it takes to get 120 volts out of your wall outlets. My panels were cheap compared to the cost of the everything else. You don't even want to think about the cost of those lithium batteries I need to store just one days' worth of electricity. Let one panel in a series go bad, it kills the output of the whole series. Take a three cell flashlight and put one dead battery in it and turn it on, you get literally nothing, that's what you get with one bad panel in a series. What do you think that blowing sand is going to do to the surface of those panels, increase the output?
Your cost ratios are not correct. The panels have an average life span of 20 years. They are not recyclable. They make super emissions to build. They are mostly built in China. Components come mostly from Africa. The panels in this video are not 17% of California's energy as it said.
@@JohnDoe-yq8ox When we see a 1,000 acre solar farm, all of these panels will eventually be buried in a landfill. There is a case that California's green energy reporting is obfuscated to include electricity that actually comes from coal and natural gas. The accounting system is loosey goosey, and politics rewards the overstating of the reporting of renewables.
A city in Michigan invested tens of millions to replace all their current (working) incandescent traffic lights with leds. The energy savings as well as the longevity of the bulb looked good on paper. All started well until the first Winter hit and all of the traffic lights were iced and snowed-over resulting in the inability to read the traffic lights. It turns out the lower-energy consumption of leds also meant less heat was dissipated. Unfortunately, the incandescent heat generated enough heat to keep the lights from being frozen over. Rather than to admit their mistake and revert- the city commissioned a task force and corrective action board that took half a year to come up with a heat pack that would be installed on the back of every single led traffic signal. Unfortunately, the heat packs used more energy than the incandescent bulbs and would have to be replaced as often as the incandescent bulbs. The maintenance crew tasked with traffic light management was never reduced. The price tag of the project was nearly 350% over-budget. Needless to say 10 years later all of those hodgepodged traffic lights along with the mayor and city council were all replaced.
That's nice to know. Even if the city "meant well", it doesn't generate any pat on the back. It sounds like the old "the ends justify the means" blabber.
Except in this case, the ends got the city government replaced
Same issues with windmills in some areas where they need to add fossil fuel generated electricity to heat the blades so they don’t ice over.
This is the problem with "bold" programs - they virtually all fail and are idiotic, because "bold" means "untested and unnecessary risk" in this sense. They should have not been bold, and instead tested the idea on a small scale first. They would have known the problems within a year if they had not been dumb basses. This is what happens when idiots run government and idiots vote for them.
Sounds like cheap bad engineering… or an idiot didn’t hire a decent engineer…
I don’t see what’s a failure here, these solar farms are a great success story and we need as many as we can to stop burning fossil fuel.
You believe that fossil fuel causes climate change because that's the narrative you are told. No doubt you also believed that masks and social distancing would prevent people from catching Covid, that the vaccine would make you immune to it, that if everyone would only take the shot that the virus would go away. Your namesake is sadly so point on accurate.
What are going to do with the ones that wear out? They are not recyclable. So we are going to have a nice big landfill. Also their construction damages the fragile desert ecosystem that is there. Endangered species like the desert tortoise if not moved are killed, birds like the Redtailed hawk and others are fried. So that kind of defeats the main purpose of protecting the environment doesn't it. Also it takes quite a bit of water to keep them clean. In the deserts where I live, the Solar fields in place require approximately 100,000 gallons of water per year to clean them.
Parenthetically, if you have ever been by one, check and see how many people are actually working there.
It's been proven that completely eliminating carbon Dioxide emissions will have no measurable affect on "Climate change ". It's also been proven that there's not enough land mass to facilitate wind and solar production for the world's population. The mining that goes into the production of EV batteries more than offsets any supposed benefits of EVs. We need to eliminate the use of Ethanol in vehicles due to it's greater greenhouse emissions than straight gasoline. It's obvious people who want 100 pct elimtion of "fossil " fuels does care about wildlife habit destruction. Even desserts have an abundance of wildlife that people like Newsom have no qualms about destroying.
If solar Farms are a great success, then why are we having so many blackouts California
@@carloswater7 Problem, Solar farms have very little if any at all battery capacity. Therefore it is a use or lose proposition with them.
"residential solar panels are mainly used to turn solar radiation into heat energy" - nonsense. The panels are the same - sunlight into electricity. The difference is scale - commercial solar fields are much larger than a building installation and are designed to feed the grid rather than a particular building.
Regarding reliability the big negative for solar is it only works from about 10 to 3 when the sun shines. How reliable is a power source like that?
The only reason solar is popular is because the CPUC mandates the percentage of solar for each utility. They have NO choice as to new power sources. That is why my kwhr rate is 3 times what is was in 2000 when San Onofre was running.
For this particular project you mention the ownership and that the output is sold to SoCal Edison but then say the project was funded by DOE? So US taxpayers are subsdizing a power project that serves Southern California?
Who says traditional forms of electrical energy production have become too expensive or not as effective - we still need those traditional power plants to provide power for about 18 of every 24 hours? And the cost of duplicating electrical energy production facilities will only get worse as California attempts to eliminate gas powered vehicles.
I had the same thought. If he's referring to solar water heating, then that's an entirely different technology and shouldn't even be included in this discussion since this is only about PV, which is the same whether in a huge solar farm or a single panel on your RV.
This whole video is riddled with errors as such. Sounds like a D grade High School report.
That's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
where was the failure??? you never mentioned that there was a failure except in the very name of the show!
Seems to me that it's doing exactly what it's supposed to. The shortfalls are in grid infrastructure and energy storage (and more esoterically, energy usage and efficiency, none of which a solar farm can provide. Is the lack of on-demand production a drawback of solar? Sure. But I'll take that over shortened lifespans from air pollution, the far greater mining requirements of fossil fuels vs battery and solar cell materials, and numerous other drawbacks of fossil fuels.
And reliable nuclear power solves the on-demand issues and at $73 billion at least 3-5 nuclear plants could have been built without the destruction of large tracts of local ecology.
The failure is the State of California trying to do generation planning. Leave it to the government to give in to the special interests and not look out for the citizens. And shortened lifespans - I thought there are too many people? But wait - doesn't California encourage unlimited immigration?
The problem with solar is energy storage. People keep looking into the short fall of battery storage, when they can easily be solve this problem by turning to company in Japan, like Toyota, who already saw the shortfall of battery storage in electric car. Use that excess energy to make hydrogen fuel cell to be use later during on demand time, and at night.
One way to store the energy is as iron powder which can be burned in coal plants repurposed for this use. When iron powder is burned it produces iron oxide, there is no CO2 produced. The iron oxide powder can then be turned back into iron powder using energy from solar, wind or wave energy.
Fossil fuels are cleaner then green energy in the long run.
It would be interesting to hear of the periodic maintenance requirements of all those panels., e.g., surface cleaning, deterioration from the weather, monitoring and replacement of bad panels etc.
That's always been the case. As new PV technologies evolve, we always want to know those specific factors. Consider the various applications from these to Mars rovers and every satellite in between.
Exactly, if maintenance and replacements are more than profits what’s the point
@@stenbak88 well, obviously long term environmental impact is a major consideration besides profits.
Blowing sand seems to be the hardest thing on the solar panels. I'm not sure how to get around it.
We use Solar for livestock water wells ( summer use only) 2 or 6 panels on a well ( depending on depth) it works well but look at this mess Panels have a lifespan of give or take 10 years.
You have a strange understanding of "Failure", looks like a successful venture to me
These black penals heat up the air much more than the sand around that solar field
Sure can tell you why “California’s … is a failure.” It’s because the content provider needed a TEASER to get all of us to view it”.
Solar farms are only part of the energy supply mix. The state will need to add massive amounts of storage facilities to meet the 24/7 electric energy needs of the state. Do not forget millions of kw of solar and wind will be needed just to supply the energy storage facilities.
Yes. Yet they continue to talk enviroment while ignoring the cost and enviromental impact of having many thousands of megawatts of storage batteries (or pumped hydro in a state without enough water).
@@lrayvick Well what IS the environmental impact of having enough batteries? Every example I've seen has shown many benefits both enviromentally and financially.
@@glennmartin6492 space, conversion losses, upstream manufacturing pollution, disposal, plant dangers from fire & groundwater poisoning, etc.
@@lrayvick What vast amounts of space do batteries take up? Any conversion losses are less than giving up all the energy that could be captured. What is the upstream manufacturing pollution and how can it be more than what you get with fossil fuels? Why wouldn't you just recycle the materials instead of chucking them in a gully? Any battery installatins I've seen have been on concret slabs and away from buildings so what fire risk are you talking about? What groundwater poisoning? Once again you can recycle them.
@@glennmartin6492 how much space would 2000000 kW of battery capacity take? 2000000 kW might supply San Diego if they could produce say 18,000,000 kWhr. At conversion efficiencies of say 70% how much larger will the solar plants have to be to provide power from their batteries from 3 pm to 9 am? Do you know how much batteries cost per megawatt? Do you know the environmental effects of manufacturing and disposal? Do you know how we would deal with large leaks or explosions from such facilities? What would their installation and operation costs be?
Such a large investment and yet the panels don't appear to tilt and track the sun.
I'm pretty sure they don't work in the dark either.
This site was before trackers were cost effective.
Water tide power seems undeveloped in California not like they don't have unpopulated coastline. Also wind power has many crazy designs available that have internal blades and more practical in lower density
I don’t know why they do not cover all roads or at least highways with solar panels? Yes I know cost and maintenance but less heat absorption on to the roads. Also all roof tops.
California is testing out putting solar panels on aqueducts which double tasks at reducing evaporation.
And parking lots!
This is a silly conclusion. We have always had issues with power supply regardless if it was oil or not. Of course there are disadvantages to using solar. It has fewer disadvantages than other forms of energy. It is very very cheap power and it has met it's objectives. Solar is not the whole grid, just part of it. To say it didn't solve all of our problems is like saying that one stretch of highway fixes all of the other highways.
How do you figure it has fewer disadvantages than other forms of generation. It only works about 1/4 of the time. No utility would accept that low availability especially in view of the costs of installation. Solar is the reason my per kwhr rates have increased 300% in 20 years. Our rates doubled when San Onofre (nuclear) was shut down around 2000.
@@lrayvick wow. So much bad info there, don't know where to begin. Any chance you're a Republican?
@@brianwall9592 former utility power contracts engineer. The oligarchs in Sacramento are suffering from severe cranial rectal insertion. So, what is the bad info? Maybe you can explain my 65 cents per kwhr rate during the peak hours and why at the same time there is insufficient power resources in CA?
@@brianwall9592 lol you got owned and all you could come up with was a sorry attempt at a slight?
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u ? What are you talking about, I only had the one Comment here, I didn't respond to him yet, so how did I "come up with" ANYTHING, yet, Jeenyuz D?
This video has such a deceptive title. This solar farm is largely a success. I'll take the slight disadvantages os solar if it means not burning fossil fuel.
@misternice Nah, looking at all the other comments the overwhelming opinion is that this video is pure bullshit clickbait..
I just bought two 400w American made panels for $600. I think that is pretty inexpensive but I need two more and a couple more batteries which are $$$. The panels will pay for themselves in a year or so
What happens at night??
You don't see it, but there are rails underneath. So the panels are moved on trains to stay ahead of night time. And then the trains go on ships and circumnavigate the globe so they are always in daylight.
Hope it's windy, so the windmills will spin fast enough to generate electricity.
So in the end the solar farm was a great success. I hate it when CZcams channels bait you with misleading titles.
You failed to mention through this entire video that solar cells only produce 12 volts DC. Tell us what the power loss is through an inverter.
Looks like a success to me.
If it's a success, Then why are we having so many blackouts in California??
Thanks for not answering the question of why the solar farm is "failing".
So if we need 8M solar panels for 160,000 homes then we will need 2 Trillion panels for the entire state,
You may need to retake remedial math. its closer to 650 million and nobody said all energy has to be solar
Maybe if you use Imperial units you could do math properly.
@@mattbibeault843 Maybe you do too. That's what you get for using residents instead of residencies. lol. Number is closer to 750M so you are wrong too.
One thing I've been wondering for awhile is how much solar energy contributes to global warming. That's right, I said contributes. We all know that dark colors absorb more light than light colors. So how much extra heat does 1 square meter of panel produce compared to light colored dirt? And what is the relationship of that extra heat gathering compared to the effect of lower CO2 emissions? Is it a tiny percentage? Or does it completely negate the effect of lowering CO2 emissions? Do we even know?
Commies don't like those questions.
Those animations are sick 🔥
What most people don't realize is that the power generated by solar is not usable. It must be converted into usable power. The next thing that they don't mention is the thermal pollution. If it's so great, why does kalifornia have rolling blackouts and power outages? The numbers just don't add up.
They are literally asking people not to charge their electric cars! The fear of rolling blackouts doesn't sound very successful. You still need baseline power production
This narrator seems to be a cheerleader for solar farms rather than what the title suggests
Nevada and Arizona could change their entire economies by converting their deserts. Could you imagine?
So right finally a good use for a useless space
We have not even begun to evaluate the enviromental impact of transferring trillions of solar insolation BTUs from the deserts.
Transmission lines are needed for those plants
This is insane: the California governor says that all vehicles in 20 years should be electric. A few days ago here is in sunny California we are getting a message from a local power company asking not to charge electric vehicles over Labor Day because of severe pressure on California‘s power grid. Way back everyone was talking about power being generated from windmills. This one when Kaput too. The thing is that we will depend on carbon fuels for years to come until we start harvesting power from hydrogen and nuclear fusion.
The grid won't be able to sustain the needed power as it is now, and you can't build power plants in a couple of days and burning more fossil fuels will only make things worse not solve them. You are confusing two things, in a hot weekend the grid is already strained no matter where the energy is coming from, that is the present situation. The power will have to come from renewal sources to power vehicles that are not locally adding to the problem, that will take time. Bottom, line it is too late, millions of people are going to die because we took too long to act, but something needs to be done so at least there will be some kind of living environment left for future generations.
That's not insane. That's the California governor. They (well, I mostly) don't call him Gov. Nuisance for nothing. First he wants to shut down El Diablo Nuke early, then now, after the plant has reached its expected end of life for its form of tech and maintenance life, he now wants to just "extend it's operation" far into the future to cover the lack of needed energy to meet California's needs and his stupid dart in the dartboard goal of all electric cars by 2035 and all California renewable power by 2045. The damned fool and his party has completely opposed and ignored nuclear for years and now that its going to bite them politically, they are going to extend poor Diablo into failing from age and making the nuclear scared "chicken little" crowd seem justified. That fool is placing us all behind the curve for his political cronies and his presidential aspirations.
Producing hydrogen through electrolysis using renewable electricity is already being done at large scale in Europe. Hydrogen can be run through existing natural gas pipelines, so the infrastructure is mostly there already. Hydrogen gas can power cars, light trucks and trains. It can be converted into synthetic liquid fuels for heavy trucks, ships and aircraft where higher energy density is required. The technology is there, we just need to start investing in it as soon as possible to avoid the worst effects of climate change. And by the way, so guys like Putin cannot turn off the energy tap to Europe when he feels like it. Nuclear fusion is the holy grail, but too far in the future to help us much. Hydrogen is available now.
@@jamesmeyer1325 hydrogen has already been proven as not a viable solution, that's why it hasn't taken hold.
@@andresd6193 hey dude, you’re not getting my point: switching to clean energy will not again will not support the state‘s demand for all electrical vehicles from the current power grid. And supplementing the current grid from windmills and/or solar power will not suffice. So are you going to ask people to burn tires in their backyard to meet that demand? Nonsense. President Obama came up with this beautiful solar idea, soaked billions and billions of dollars, which turned out to be a complete fiasco. Bottom line, carbon fuel is to stay here.
ok so not a failier at all then ..... lets build more of these please.
The largest solar farm in the US is Topaz Solar Farms. 9 Million panels. $2.5 Billion cost was fully funded by Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway Renewables. DOE did not fund Desert Sunlight, only gave loan guarantees. Both were First Solar projects. The state is not funding these projects. Both have proven to be profitable for the investors.
Transition to alternate energy should be a seamless transition with retention
of functionality of power stations being upgraded kept online as a backup,
which should provide a reserve for good reason. Not all conventional fuel
requiring machinery is practical to be transitioned so there is not going to
be any complete replacement of vehicles or farm equipment or heavy
equipment and industrial machinery or aircraft with alternate technology
in the foreseeable future. Escalating the transition without understanding
feasibility limitations including cost effectiveness is a formula for failure.
What is being attempted to be done needs to be a very gradual process
and very carefully done with practical and achievable goals, not done as
a recklessly escalated and over optimistic agenda, but done with finesse,
and slow but sure, since it involves a truly huge engineering challenge.
Not the least of things to consider is the price of progress and is there
the wealth available to pay for such grand schemes. To what end is it
to build a New Eden where everyone would want to live but no one can
afford the cost of living there so the luxurious utopia has no residents.
It needs to be a fully engineered solution that accounts for all of this. The way things are being done is piecemeal "just get the panels in and worry about the rest later". That's not an approach that is likely to end well. I hate to be overly conspiratorial, but these panels are mostly made in China, and China has no qualms with bribing US politicians.
Exactly!
efficiency is mostly lost in the transmission of power. so the solution is not large solar farms in the boonies, it's producing power locally where it's needed. we need to stop thinking inside the grid and start thinking about self sufficiency when we build and stop depending on utilities
exactly--if solar is truly cheaper than other forms of power generation, then it's cheaper still to install it locally. I think the batteries are still not quite there so solar is a universal solution, but it's close. I costed out a whole house system recently... it's right at the cost of the grid power for me mainly because of the batteries. If the batteries were 1/2 as expensive or lasted twice as long, it'd be a no brainer. In areas with better conditions (I'm in a cloudy region), it's probably feasible today.
This article doesn't indicate how much electricity California purchases from generating facilities in other states.
Will California, in the future, only purchase renewable sourced electricity?
In 2007, less than 1% of South Australia’s electricity came from renewable sources. An army of trolls claimed it was impossible for intermittent renewables to power more than 20% of SA’s grid. South Australia is at the vanguard of the global energy transition, lifting net electricity generation from renewable energy from 1% to 74% in just over 16 years.
By 2025/2026, the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise to approximately 85%.
South Australia’s aspiration is to achieve 100% net renewables by 2027. In 2021, South Australia met 100% of its operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days (49%) (via grid scale battery storage)
I've noticed that after a highway was built in my area, the weather patterns changed. It always rained on the side between the highway and the mountains, but rarely on the opposite side. Prior to that, it rained on both sides pretty much evenly. It seems like the highway created a barrier to the moisture due to the heat it collects. The collection of heat from the highway and the collection of heat from the panels are very similar. If we are talking save the earth, should we not take into consideration how these new sources contribute to global warming and the changing weather patterns? Should this not be part of the environmental statements before permits are given out?
Super observation! An asphalt highway is a huge heat sink that emits heat all night long as you've observed. The light colored Mojave covered with black solar panels has to alter the temperature a lot!
I don't know, but it seems that usually you don't see much rain in deserts, so if you say that this plants are changing the weather or making it hotter, prove it.
@@coco_bold Take Valley of the Sun aka Phoenix for example. When the Valley was mostly agricultural, old timers said monsoon thunderstorms would dump rain in the Valley. Now, the Valley is 75%(+/-) asphalt and concrete and the thunderstorms generally stay clear of the Valley and hold over the mountains.
@@coco_bold That's just my point. Where I live, I noticed the change. But, history shows that places that were once deserts are now oasis and other places that were oasis are now deserts. So, just what do solar solar systems do? Someone should study this. Environmental statements prior to permitting?
@@oldhardrock2542 That is solid evidence of change.
Well, there are certainly a lot of issues with Solar. One being that it doesn't work everywhere. California is ideal because of the weather and the sunshine. How about where I live in Pennsylvania? We get shorter sunlight in the winter, snow, rain, hail, all of which affect the reliability of solar. Also, given our weather conditions, the panels can be damaged and must be changed, In my backyard, I would have to chop down a lot of trees to get the sunlight, so a Michael Moore tells us, I would have to destroy the environment to protect it.
Then there is the mining issue where the resources to make solar panels come from Africa. The mining damages the environment and is done by if not slave, the almost slave labor. Final assembly is done in China, again is it done with slave labor? And, as we buy things from China, they build up their military and threaten war. And then there is the issue of disposal. Placing spent solar panels in a land fill results in pollutants leaking into the environment.
I hope it all comes up roses for California because they certainly need a solution to their energy woes.
Those panels are killing the same desert that once would get you arrested if you dug up a cactus or caught a lizard and took took it home. Only true environmental geniuses can literally kill a desert.
They already have the solution. It's called fossil fuels.
The image at 2:07 is Sedona in Arizona FYI
Southern California for three more years. The energy department has an energy innovation network I believe that’s what it’s called.
Has anyone studied the effect of solar farms and the heat they produce on the weather patterns presently creating droughts.
@naidirolf no one talks about how so much natural habitat is scraped to bare dirt to make room for these "farms". Why do you think mountain lions are going into residential areas looking to eat kitty.
@@obsoleteprofessor2034 "scraped to bare dirt"? Have a look at agrovolataics where the land is farmed under the space PV array and the partial shade actually results in more productive fields.
As they absorb energy that would otherwise have been turned into heat and convert it into non-heat, it could be that they have a cooling effect - don't know.
@@glennmartin6492 California provides double incentive for taking "water wasting" ag land out of production plus gives subsidies for solar "farms". Edit: triple incentive if the project is owned by women, quadruple incentive if those women are person's of color. If the persons of color are cis men, the slate is wiped clean and they have to fund the project themselves. If the men are white, they have to pay a privilege fee...it's only fair.
@@eventhisidistaken They're darker than the surrounding desert but they shade the gound. I'm sure there's a study somewhere.
I worked on this project from beginning to end. It was awesome to be a part of it. And it was a gravy train for everyone involved. First solar went bankrupt shortly after this job was over (back in business now). We had a monthly safety BBQ where they raffled of TVs, Laptops and thousands of dollars in gift cards every month . It was awesome. But budgets were never considered and the compliance side of this job was probably half the cost. Solar fields destroy cultural resources, wildlife, and natural habitats, not to mention all the diesel burned to clear and grade the project area plus minning all the rare earth metals needed for PV panels. Probably 10x the pollution and 1000x land needed more then a simple nuclear plant with double the output, doesn't really make sense or pan out. But sunshine makes the hippies in California feel good when virtue signaling. Keep destroying this earth in the name of green energy.
,,All those overpriced solar cells will be toxic waste, contaminating groundwater in just a few years. More Taxpayer money, down the drain. 👎🏿
That's 8 minutes I'll never get back!
I'm reading the comments and a lot of people are saying that solar Farms are not a failure. I have a question for them. California relies on solar energy not on fossil fuels. So why are we having so many blackouts in many parts of California?? It seems solar energy is not sufficient
Solar certainly does not help to charge EVs or run A/C at night - unless there are batteries, but battery cost is already the factor that limits EV adoption. Storing solar energy in batteries will compete with EVs.
@@timothykeith1367 that answers a lot of questions. thanks for the info, I appreciate
The major issue that all of the large scale projects face is Energy Storage. The million dollar question is how to store large quantities of the energy to cover the period of Low to Non Sun light hours on the system and or severe weather.
Yes, I believe that we need to make an effort to do our part in the environmental issues we are having. But, we need to make sure that we are able to keep the lights on and deal with the power demand of today and the future. As a Californian we have been hearing for the last couple of days (Week of September 5th) the need to watch our power draw. We have had high heat (my area 85+ ). SO we know that the people of the state have been suffering rolling brown outs to actual black outs.
So, what will be the method of storing the energy that is produced from these production facilities? Will the be some type of battery (Battery will be a whole other issue waste wise) or will a source of stored energy (Water/Compressed airs-gas or a unknown future tech). The biggest question I see is how will we power the state in the evening / early morning hours take place? This will need to be looked at with a fine tooth come think of Texas and the issues they had during winter. Then how do we play the game of power generation for those times?
We all know that all power generation comes at some cost to the environment. The biggest question that I see now is what is the impact that the manufacturing of the solar pv panels will have on the environment and the what is the life cycle of the panels and what is being put in place to ensure that when a unit and or solar farm becomes decommissioned what will happen to the equipment and land of the project? Look at the video at the 3:09 the closest Wind Turbine Generators are probably of the 500Kwh - 750Kwh production range. This is an example of what I am talking about for the deconstruction of out of commission units. These are something I know about first hand from working in the Wind Industry for almost 10 years. The industry needs to have more plans for the decommissioning of either non functioning units and or when a field is beyond economic viability for profit. Those of us in the industry have seen massive amounts of early WTG's the litter the landscape dead and non functioning. Now newer projects that I was associated had clauses built into the finance and usage contract that the field would be taken down and the environment would be returned to original condition.
We need to make sure that this is the case with these projects as well or we will be left with square kilometers of dead projects.
You don’t need Hugh battery storage. You only want 5 to 15 minutes of storage.
You need enough time to bring gas fired units on line.
This presentation forgot to mention the billions of taxpayer dollars that the government spends on subsidies for alternative energy production !
The government spends more money subsidizing the fossil fuel industry than renewables. Subsidies make more sense for emerging industries than for mature industries. Subsidies for the most profitable companies? That doesn't make sense to me.
@@mattbibeault843 Sorry my friend but you are wrong , the so-called renewables would not even be an option without government subsidies !
@@gabrielegrainger5252 That all depends on where you are located. In areas where electricity is relatively inexpensive that may be so. in areas where it is more costly it does still payoff. in my area the cost is about $0.29 per kWh and Soar pays for itself in less than 10 years without subsidies
I Feel.. ...
SWAMPY..
This report is of the "frogs are green because they eat green grasshoppers" type of report.
This video is why we need the dislike # back.
OK California gets 25% of its electricity from Washington state from his hydroelectric dams and I don’t like to just make a note that Washington State Wheatland nation and renewable energy through it when turbines hydroelectric and solar rays and we sell that to California my second question though is why are the US taxpayers paying for California’s electrical production needs I think California should figure out what it wants if it wants clean energy from hydroelectric or if it wants to irrigate a desert to grow rice Albans since California uses 3,800,000 acre feet of water to irrigate these crops out of the Colorado river which has dramatically affected his ability to generate clean electricity from hydroelectric Californians. Need to ask the government if it would rather export exotic foods to keep illegal immigrants employed or supply electricity to a state so that California residents don’t die in the heat waves California holds itself so high and mighty like it’s the great leader environmental causes when it is actually the Greatest cause of environmental problems in the country that is California’s legacy a state full of hypocrites
All this energy is being produced, but where is it going? Seems California has to start focusing on managing this energy instead of giving it to electric companies.
So electricity costs in California are declining relative to the rest of the country...?
Now do the carbon footprint of building maintaining these facilities vs nuclear ? also those panels cannot be recycled and new ones get purchased from china that uses coal to produce the power to produce the panels plus the shipping
Exactly.
Not exactly.
Desert Sunlight uses American made modules, not the Chinese modules shown in the fake video.
Nuke power was used in the creation of the modules.
California could have built at least 5 nuclear power plants and produce 100 times more energy at less than 2% of the land use by renewables. France is now powering Europe because they built nuclear power than solar and wind energy.
YES! If the US government had delivered on its 1950s promise to the utilities to provide spent fuel reprocessing and plutonium disposal we would not have the issue of spent fuel being stored in perpetuity at the plants.
A 1.1mW nuclear powerplant costs between 6 and 9 Billion to build today in the US. Who knows what it will cost to decommission and care for the nuclear waste. We need to do more research into thorium reactors. Much safer and waste that is only an issue for a few hundred years not tens of thousands. They also can't melt down if they fail they get cooler and stop the reaction relying only on gravity.
@@mattbibeault843 meanwhile we rely on natural gas for most of our generation in CA. Of course we import as much nuclear (Palo Verde), coal fired, and hydro as we can. Meanwhile 2200 MW of San Onofre sits mothballed. But all that doesn't matter. You CANT provide power to CA or the USA for that matter with solar. You will need billions of dollars of battery storage if we don't build Nuclear.
@@lrayvick I'm not anti nuke. My point was, if you want to make an argument ger your facts straight. A nuclear power plant costs at least 4 times as much to build not 5 times less.
Nukes should be part of the energy mix, but they should only be built in certain areas. Many nukes are built in the wrong locations and until people learn to build them in the right locations, they should not be constructed anywhere.
Very sad so many were built wrong. The idiots that placed them in bad locations should be killed for what they did.
The term Failure is sure good clickbait. Utility Solar has pros and cons. Mind Blown.
Try looking at a graph of fixed panel installation output sometime! If you can read and understand a standard graph the plot will surprise you!
Most people in California live in shanties for insane high prices. Yes, according to Austrian building standards, most houses in California are not suitable for housing and are seen as shanties.
Just replace these shanties with CPSH - Climate Protection Superiority Houses to solve all energy problems. The first ever produced CPSH will be the GEMINI next Generation house, standard version with 43 kW photovoltaic and 100 kWh batteries. Will have in California 50,000 to 55,000 kWh yearly yield by minimal own consumption for cooling, heating and DHW. czcams.com/video/ZkDUKoNgaII/video.html
I have found the problem, after my investigation and talking with energy heads, it appears they switch the solar farm off during the day and back on again at night. Secondly the other issue was no rain, as we know we need rain for the voltaic solar cells to operate, so during dry periods the panels are switched off 24/7. Sorry can’t wait until 1st April for this gag.
I understand there’s A lot of red tape to build a solar farm in The state of California in Mexico, particularly Baja California. We could lease the land for 99 years.
What the..? If this was a coal fired power plant and California still shut down too many power sources then, according to the poster, that would be a failure too.
Apparently the poster doesn't realise that new power plants add power rather than take it away.
The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm 3900 acres, $1.4 Billion, 550mw powering 160k homes.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant 1000 acres, $14 billion (2020 adjusted) 18,000GW powering 3 million homes.
@@boblatkey7160 sadly, you're losing one.
The nukes are a great idea if built in the right place. They are a very bad idea if built in the wrong place. More than half of US nukes are built in the wrong place…
@@noname-FJB No doubt, but the reactors we currently have are decades old gen 2 reactors and are susceptible to certain disasters.
Gen 3, 3+ and Gen 4 reactors are drastically safer and could survive and shut down safely without risk of meltdowns
Max power consumption will be at night soon when all those EV's are trying to recharge. So battery storage capacity needs to increase significantly.
Hot Sunny places in the Southwest should put solar above every parking lot. Shade for your car, Power for the stores.
NOT ONCE DOES HE MENTION FAILURE IN THE VIDEO
It cost 1.5 billion dollars to build but estimates to sale the electricity for 1 billion dollars over its lifespan. Unless I heard it wrong, that’s a loss of half a billion dollars.
I'm working at the Oberon 1 and Oberon 2 farms , it's on 4300 acres!!
FYI: power output of a PV farm: 0. At night.
So with this 1.5 billion dollar investment , they are having power outages during the daylight hours......
There is no relationship between the title of this video and its content. The main negative argument, energy storage, was not mentioned once.
Anytime you can produce power with no fuel source can not be a failure.
Unfortunately it can be. If a system cannot produce enough electricity for the grid.
@@Dularr It may be a design failure but not a failure when it make what it was made to do. If you buy gasoline to go 100 miles then try to go 200 is it a failure.
@@offgridwanabe you example is perfect. It is a failure if you can't buy enough gas to run your car all day.
@@Dularr Sure but it is not the failure of the gas.
The solar farm itself wasn't a failure. Misleading title.
Lets me further know how important it is to get behind new nuclear.
So the title was click-bait and not true? Frowny face goes here.
They would have made more energy if they made it where they can have native plants under them like cactus yucca succulents flowers.
What how why.
Well the plants cool them as they grow and keep cool in hot days they even reduce pollution.
But no they just made a massive heat island and destroyed native plants for energy.
So Inefficient😔.
The first big solar plant in California failed decades ago after ripping up 500 year old Joshua trees, it was the first solar desert. Also solar panels have optimal temperature working range from 20 to 30 degrees, excessive heat in a desert is detrimental to the panels which are powered by light.
I think in 15 years the dumb politicians no longer around who didn't read or care to read the warranty fine print on solar panels will not be penalised for these stupid investments at the taxpayers expense
Or they could spend that $1.5 Billion on 0.7% of a brand new nuclear power plant.... and they'll have to wait 12 to 18 years for construction to finish.
er, the video should have been titled "The Success of California's $1.5 Billion Solar Farm".
Not a failure. Needs to be scaled up. Only failure here is that they didn't build big enough. Go Bhadla scale atleast.
Hmm, looks like the tech for storing large quantities of solar generated energy is lacking
Solar Achilles heel will always be that the sun dont shine when most need power especially with millions of electric vehicles being added to the grid!
Charge during the day then! However, there may be a problem with not enough chargers at work. We could trade our unused home solar electricity production when we are not there, for plugging in at work. Use the grid like a long extension cord.
Clickbait title
Why not just give neighbours free electricity to shut dissent up?