Comments on: BrightSource Corrects Numerous LA Times Mistakes Regarding Solar Energy

By: geo brecke

geo brecke — Wed, 12 Mar 2014 00:01:00 +0000

I’m amazed at how little data some people need to make a decision on the benefit of Ivanpah to humanity. Most of the articles I see are no more than a rehash of the propaganda the principals feed to the media. If there’s any respect for facts, we’ll see a power meter placed for the public to view, and we’ll also see how actual maintenance costs line up with the projected ones. IF you don’t see this happen soon, think the worst. Meanwhile check out El Paso Electric and their honorable and ethical efforts to share reality with rate payers and stock holders. Pay attention to that Roadrunner Power Plant, it’s KISS, and puts power through the meter. It starts early, and works as late into the afternoon as most I’ve studied.

By: robertemery

robertemery — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 20:49:00 +0000

Reliable battery technology is some ways in the future. But solar electricity can be used to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water, stored and used in a fuel cell to produce electricity and hot water. Almost all components are off the shelf. Fuel cells are presently used as back up power and solar to produce hydrogen from water is already under study for fueling stations for fuel cell or hydrogen powered vehicles

By: robertemery

robertemery — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 20:39:00 +0000

The article compares 60 years of oil and gas incentives to the amounts of solar and wind recent sources. Oil is not used to generate electricity. Therefore the only valid comparison are energy sources used to produce electricity on the on a present yearly which numbers I used were the United States Energy Information Agency which is much valid and accurate comparison. Then the profit aspect of Ivanpah: The news media widely reported the 30% Grant, I reviewed the project for investors and I am invested myself through Goldman Sachs. So I know the costs as well as the PPA.

Now my point; every time the media like LA Times publishes an an article and there is a major rebuttal, my phone rings off the hook and my email box fills up from other sources seeking the facts so I share my displeasure. These are relatively new technologies of the future and they time and money to develop. Why don’t people quit trying to cloud the facts. Let’s move on an get er done.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:48:00 +0000

I’m not sure what your point is re: not using oil to generate electricity. We use oil and we subsidize oil. And the price of oil continues to climb.
And, as I pointed out, our modest subsidies for wind and solar have helped bring about enormous price decreases for those technologies.

I think we should subsidize some thermal solar. I think we need to study that technology more thoroughly although I suspect PV solar + battery storage will turn out to be a better technology.

By: robertemery

robertemery — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 19:12:00 +0000

Why don’t we wait 60 years and compare 60 years of subsidies to solar vs oil and gas. I believe you find Solar will Win out. Also we don’t use oil to generate electricity.in the US,

Solar PV is now competitive with CSP solar and some projects are switching over to PV. Solar PV van be located on roof tops in town and minimize the need for transmission upgrades.

A true believer in solar sees Facts as goals to overcome and the fact it NOW may cost more than a combined cycle doesn’t be little its potential

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:36:00 +0000

“Using 60 years of oil and gas subsidies is an invalid comparison.”

Horse-hockey.

We’ve subsidized oil and gas for 60 years and likely more. By now they should be able to stand on their own.

Subsidizing emerging technologies is how we generally bring new technologies to market. Subsidizing wind and PV solar has been
wildly successful. The price of wind-generated electricity has dropped to 1/6th of what it was, making wind our cheapest way to generate electricity. The price of PV solar is approaching 1/20th of where it started and it is now cheaper than new nuclear or coal.

We’ve subsidized oil and gas and the price just keeps going up….

By: robertemery

robertemery — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:13:00 +0000

Whatever is said the Reality will be the same. The Ivanpah project is 50% low interest Gov loan, 30% GRANT and 20% equity and is common public knowledge. Simply the value of an investor’s share increased in 150% from the Grant.

Less than 1% of US Electric generation is from oil. Using 60 years of oil and gas subsidies is an invalid comparison.According to an Energy Information Administration study the U.S. subsidizes solar power to the tune of $24.34 a megawatt hour, $23.37 that year for wind, 44 cents for coal, 25 cents for natural gas and $1.59 for nuclear power. Since solar only works when the sun shines and Ivanpah doesn’t include thermal storage, it has the capability to burn natural gas, inefficiently as compared to a Combined Cycle. It is more efficient and cost effective to add solar trough direct steam generation to an existing fossil fuel facility than adding fossil fuel components to a solar facility. This design was tested by the DOE in the 80s. Both of these facts are why there aren’t many these facilities presently planned in the rest of the world.

Before I am labeled a solar heretic, I have a pending US Patent on solar direct steam technology presently being incorporated in designs in China and SE Asia where cost is a factor

By: StefanoR99

StefanoR99 — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:11:00 +0000

LA Times, rapidly becoming the Fox News of the newspaper world

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Sun, 30 Sep 2012 13:29:00 +0000

Since the cabal that runs the country and doesn’t want to “let go” of the poison that makes them rich while putting all of us in harms way own the media too, it’s no wonder that rags like the LA Times does “hit pieces” that are designed to confuse people while looking like they are “investigative journalists”. They are masters at this type of BS..
In the end, though, green wins the race.