- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California to shutdown $2.2 billion solar plant that never lived up to its promises
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:16 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:16 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
California to shutdown $2.2 billion solar plant that never lived up to its promises
Now do their high speed rail, or whatever that thing was supposed to be.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:17 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:
False. It was providing power and could have continued to do so. But technology has become so much better since 2014 newer plants produce power for much cheaper. It uses mirrors to reflect sunlight to boilers that produce steam which is very antiquated now. It doesn't even use PV panels .
It’s not producing anywhere near what it was supposed to or what was promised. So that fact has nothing to do with other technologies and to me that qualifies as “not working”.
If they didn’t get nearly $2 billion of our money I wouldn’t give a shite. But they did. And what you’re suggesting is akin to someone buying a new car with a loan and then getting rid of the car and trying to get out of the loan because a new model came out.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 8:18 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:18 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
PG&E may, at its option, declare an event of default,” and that it was “exploring options to mitigate this risk or its consequences.” Neither PG&E nor NRG would answer questions about what a default might mean.
Thats referring to a contract default, not a loan default. They weren't going to be able to supply the amount of electricity they contracted to provide.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:19 pm to billjamin
quote:
Kind of hard to beat the 44 quadrillion watts the earth gets blasted with every day from the sun.
Except we certainly can't capture or even utilize even a tiny fraction of that power, especially when the absolute best that reaches this planet's surface is about 1kw/m^2, and that's for only a limited amount of time per day near the equatorial belt. Nuclear fission offers about 3 orders of magnitude greater power density, probably a much better investment while we figure out fusion reactors and make our own little suns.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:20 pm to billjamin
quote:
Kind of hard to beat the 44 quadrillion watts the earth gets blasted with every day from the sun.
Super easy actually
Barely an inconvenience
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:21 pm to dj30
quote:When designing this, did yall think it would work or did yall know that it might fail?
I was actually one of the lead engineers on this project.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:22 pm to Lou
quote:
quote:
There are plenty of negatives to solar and wind farms that have more merit than the bird thing.
It's the hypocrisy. We can't build desalination plants because some fish will die. We can't reclaim freshwater for human consumption or agricultural needs because a certain species of fish might have their habitat disturbed. We can't do controlled burns on forest land because wildlife might have their natural habitat disturbed. I don't understand why the sanctity of precious wildlife is suddenly ignored when you build solar panels or windmills.
we can't divert river water because it will kill oysters
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:22 pm to billjamin
quote:
And far more $/Wh.
Doesn't have to be and one small reactor can do more than thousands of acres of PV's. Also, reliability.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:23 pm to Clames
quote:
Except we certainly can't capture or even utilize even a tiny fraction of that power, especially when the absolute best that reaches this planet's surface is about 1kw/m^2, and that's for only a limited amount of time per day near the equatorial belt. Nuclear fission offers about 3 orders of magnitude greater power density, probably a much better investment while we figure out fusion reactors and make our own little suns.
Sure but why not try and use some of that energy to power the a/c we use to hide from it? It’s not an all or nothing thing. We can have all of them together.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:25 pm to Clames
quote:
Doesn't have to be and one small reactor can do more than thousands of acres of PV's. Also, reliability.
And still be 2x+ as expensive.
You can brag about your capacity factor while you’re paying .50c/kwh.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:25 pm to billjamin
quote:
Sure but why not try and use some of that energy to power the a/c we use to hide from it? It’s not an all or nothing thing. We can have all of them together.
No one is saying we shouldn’t. Anyone should feel free to use their own and/or willing investors money to try and make that happen. Not mine.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:26 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
If they didn’t get nearly $2 billion of our money I wouldn’t give a shite. But they did. And what you’re suggesting is akin to someone but a new car with a loan and then getting rid of the car and trying to get out of the loan because a new model came out.
Ok that’s not how this works.
A private lender provided a loan to a devco. NRG is party to that devco and is the asset manager, meaning they’re in 1st chair if losses hit. The DOE under the loan program inked a deal with the private lender to backstop them to a certain point in the event of a full default. The terms of those are always favorable to the DOE which is reflected in the portfolio performance of the program even with notable bks like Solyndra.
This post was edited on 9/24/25 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:28 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
No one is saying we shouldn’t. Anyone should feel free to use their own and/or willing investors money to try and make that happen. Not mine.
I was responding to an anti-solar absolutist who thinks people value capacity factor over $/kWh.
And you’ve spent zero money on this to date. You may in the future if the default trigger hits, but you haven’t yet.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:33 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
It’s not producing anywhere near what it was supposed to or what was
That's just a dumb statement. It did produce what it was projected to produce. After the first couple of years
It was producing over 90% of projected capacity . But power produced by newer solar farms using PV Panels is more efficient and thus cheaper.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:33 pm to billjamin
quote:
I was responding to an anti-solar absolutist who thinks people value capacity factor over $/kWh.
Far from an absolutist, just have an objective understanding and am willing to accept the severe limitations of PV. Also, PV installations routinely fail to deliver on the promises of bringing down $/kWh. Obvious when the utilities make promises they can't deliver.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:36 pm to Darth_Vader
Lots of ideas and very little knowledge of how to implement and sustain them
Cali is a dumpster fire
How can anybody expect their governor to run for president and keep this country going if he can’t even manage a fricking solar farm?
Cali is a dumpster fire
How can anybody expect their governor to run for president and keep this country going if he can’t even manage a fricking solar farm?
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:37 pm to Clames
quote:
PV installations routinely fail to deliver on the promises of bringing down $/kWh.
That’s not because of the wholesale price. Probably because they’re having to cover for all the other expensive shite that they haven’t been maintaining for years.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:40 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:
Yet they still blew $2 billion of our money.
They would blow it on something else. This was just the vehicle to get it into politicians pockets
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:40 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:
It did produce what it was projected to produce. After the first couple of years
It was producing over 90% of projected capacity .
Not according to this Forbes article from 2014.
It never worked that well.
Solar thermal is the only thing lower than solar PV's in terms of capacity factor.
Posted on 9/24/25 at 8:42 pm to Zappas Stache
quote:
It's an older solar farm that can't compete with newer solar panels being used by newer solar farms which are more efficient. It's likely the property will eventually be a solar farm again with new technology being used. Meanwhile PG&E will buy more power from the newer solar farms resulting in cheaper prices for users.
What does it say about solar that you can spend $2.2 billion to build a plant and in a decade it’s so obsolete it’s better to just shut it down.
Meanwhile, a coal plant costs roughly the same and can operate upwards of 50 years before needing to be refurbished and put back into service.
Popular
Back to top



0








