North America’s largest solar photovoltaic system is now running and generating power — about 30 million kilowatt-hours of electricity annually. The 14 megawatt power plant is at the Nellis Air Force Base in the sunny desert of southern Nevada. It’s expected to save about $1 million in power costs annually, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 24,000 tons each year.
The plant, which cost $100 million to construct, covers 140 acres of land at the western edge of the Nellis base. The company that owns the panels is leasing the land at no cost, and Nellis is agreeing to buy the power for 20 years at about 2.2 cents/kWh, instead of the 9 cents they are paying to Nevada Power, saving the Air Force $1 million each year. None of the $100 million cost came from the Air Force.
The photovoltaic system is made up of 72,000 solar panels. It’s enough to provide 30% of the electric needs on the base, where 12,000 people work and 7,215 people live. But at 14 megawatts the power output of this system is modest, compared to the solar thermal Nevada One project which generates 64 megawatts of power.
SunPower designed and built the photovoltaic power plant using its proprietary single-axis solar tracking system which follows the sun throughout the day and delivers "up to 30 percent more energy than traditional fixed-tilt ground systems," the company says.
Link: Press Release
Read more! Related stories:
- 90,000 Homes To Be Powered By Chicken Manure
- $2 Billion Wind Turbine Order Is Largest Ever
- eSolar Gets $130 Million From Google and Others
- Solar Balloons Get $21 Million In Funding
- Honda’s Silcion-Free Solar Cells
{ 35 trackbacks }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Elite…..ultimately we will turn to the power of the sun.
Are you certain about the $100 million cost figure? I did not see it in MMA’s press release.
If this plant produces 30 million kWh per year, thats between $2.8 and $3.5 million worth of energy at Nevada’s current average cost of between 9.5 cents/kWh to 11.8 cents/kWh: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html
At that rate it would take between 27 to 35 years to break even assuming Zero cost for maintenance and operation, not to mention the interest costs of financing. I know solar panel durability has improved over the years, but surely every panel in that project will have to be replaced within 35 years.
I can’t imagine how $100 million makes sense. Maybe if it was $10 million, you’d probably break even at 7 or 8 years after costs. At $100 million this would seem to be the biggest solar boondogle ever. Mooonoraaaaaail anyone?
Speaking of Green, how does one dispose of a solar panel? Does it end up in a dump like everything else plastic and silicon?
I hope the $100 million is inaccurate.
It doesn’t make any sense to build something for $100 million with a $1 million/yr return. It would take at least 100 years to break even, plus maintenance and minus depreciation.
Not worth it.
exellent
http://www.spymac.com/details/?2321924
How is this the largest in North America if “this system is modest, compared to the solar thermal Nevada One project”
Save $1M/year? So it’ll take only 80 years to pay off the capital cost that’s higher by a factor of 6 than a gas-fired plant. I kind of doubt those panels will last even a fraction of that time before they have to be replaced, either.
I’m curious about stat comparisons bewteen the photovoltaic vs. concentrator systems used in the PS10 setup. Acreage usage, cost, efficiency, energy generation, etc.
I wonder if you could also have a combined system with twoway mirrors.
Numbers might not add up but hopefully in the future the cost of building these things would be a lot lower.
Build Costs per watt:
Nellis PV solar $7.14
NSO T solar $3.88
proposed Ely coal $2.53
Operating Costs per watt:
Nellis PV solar: tiny
NSO T solar: tiny
proposed Ely coal: $0.28 per year*
Turns out Ely needs 7 million tons of high grade coal a year which is already $60/ton not counting delivery costs. 7M*60=$420M in fuel costs alone adding $0.28 per watt per year to the cost of coal.
So even if we didn’t care about polution at all, coal is only be cheaper for the first 4.8 years and then Thermal Solar is cheaper from then on.
Did I mention that NSO took less than 18 months from start to finish (including the European shipping accident that delayed the turbine) and the Ely coal plant is expected to take 5 years to enter operation if they started today?
like everyone else says above. £100 million WTF!!!!
Whats the fuckin point!!
This seems like a showcase project.
The speed at which Solar technology is advancing makes this site outdated already and in 10 years it will look downright inefficient!
That is unless the energy/oil crisis worsens in which case that $1 million per year is gonna creap up bit by bit.
The whole green issue is bollocks asa far as im concerned. What matters here is getting an alternative energy source to oil before its to late!
Id say the solar panel boys are aware of this fact
Look, the public is starting to get wise to these claims that solar is sooooo much more expensive than coal, so please, naysayers GET OFF IT. Nevadas current costs might be .09-.11, that is consistent with many US utilities but that is only measuring the consumption cost of a fully amortized facility be it coal or whatever. The point is .10 per KWh is not an ACCURATE depiction of the current costs of any US utility, anywhere. If you need to build a new plant today or retrofit an existing plant, then solar with its terrestrial panel layout is MUCH cheaper than building a coal facility, MUCH MUCH cheaper than a Nuclear facility and this does not even include the mining costs. You simply can’t touch the current startup costs of a solar energy plant against *any* conventional fuelsource. Obviously if a utility has a fully amortized facility that does not need upgrading, maybe solar in that case doesn’t make sense. But for any utility that needs to be built or retrofitted today, solar is cheaper.
All that effort to save $1 Million.
It’s a case of priorities, it cost that much to keep the Iraq war going for a minute.
I wonder why they did not use CSP (concentrated solar power for this versus solar pv for this large project. The cost per watt installed would of been less and they would of generated more energy from the space they have.
-Deep Patel
http://www.gogreensolar.com
SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT MY SHOP RUNS
ON 230 – 3PHASE SOME 230 SINGLE PHASE
THIS ENCLUDS SOME LIGHTING
AND 115 V FOR THE REMAINDER
YOUR THOUGHS ON GOING GREEN
THANK YOU
TIM
There are better ways to capture Solar output and store it as a bio degradable liquid the environment can handle if it were spilled. Even one way to clean up our rivers as a bonus.
Google “Ten Sections Per County” using the quotes provided.
Enough energy to power nearly every U.S. auto and much of what the USAF flies for a little over a dollar a gallon, not counting distribution costs and of course, taxes would be extra.
The numbers just don’t add up (or multiply out). If the plant produces 30 million KWH per year, and the air force save 6.8 cents per KWH, then the air force is saving 2.04 million dollars per year not 1 million.
Dear sir,
I visited your website and astonished to read about solar technology. Kindly advise our country king to adopt solar system to fulfil our electricity requirements.
Thanks.
i need telephone number and the adress
This method of generating power is still very expensive to be used of a wide scale. Prices of solar panels should drop to 1$/W or less to become a real competitor to conventional power generating methods.
$1 million savings? The Nellis Air Force Base could have saved $220, 000!
…if they used the 3G® Tracker, a Chinese patent that delivers up to 44 percent (44%) more energy than fixed photovoltaic systems.
The uniquely designed sensor of this system, which won a Chinese patent in 2004, drives an AC/DC motor that intelligently pivots and tilts the PV arrays to face the sun in all directions throughout the day with no weather limitations. The tracking sensitivity of the product is 0.1 to 2 degrees (adjustable), and the searching scope is within a 180-degree horizontal angle and 90-degree elevation angle. Also, the system consumes less than 1‰ of the PV output to operate. The 3G® is solely owned by an individual, and the owner is seeking a patent transfer or other forms of partnership with a company or other individuals. For more information, email to 3g.tracker@gmail.com
And actually, it costs about the same as what building a new nuclear plant would costs, on a $/megawatt basis. Though typically, when a nuclear facility is built, they build them for around $1 billion.