APR 15

I'm all for expanding our use of renewable energy but I respectfully disagree with the idea that a fragile desert is the right place. In fact, while maybe not be as efficient as a factory solar farm, I believe that environmentally, that taking a hyper local approach such as roof top solar will prove the second best solution to our escalating energy needs. The best approach of course will always be to consume less energy.

Google has what it takes to be a going concern. Would it not be nice if they were to start a Google political party that has get up and go and is always looking into the Future?

Not only there is reduction of CO2 but it transforms naturally occurring sunlight into mecanical energy.
Environmental impact has been thoroughly examined.
No radiation, no mercury and no mining.
Why did it take so long?

I can't believe any right minded person would seriously entertain a Google political party. I presume you are in favor of facism (why don't you Google the definition of fascism).

Why does it take a company to invest in a "good for the environment" idea like this? Why doesn't our government that uses all this taxpayer earmark money on sometimes dumb projects, invest instead in stuff like this that would be more beneficial to US citizens and to the world?

Eric, I don't mean to be harsh but I've heard that sort of comment too many times. People are all for renewable energy, but they don't want solar in the desert, they don't want wind turbines on the plains, and they don't want dams on the rivers. They don't want power transmission lines anywhere.

Renewable energy is just barely viable from a cost standpoint as it is. Renewable energy facilities have to go where they will work, and for solar that's the desert. That's not to say that we shouldn't plaster the roofs of buildings with solar panels, we should do that too. This is a big installation that only produces 392 MW. A recently completed natural gas powered plant a bit closer to LA takes up much less area and produces over three times as much electricity. If the solar plant wasn't out in the desert, it would produce even less.

Besides, have you ever been to Ivanpah? It isn't like it's pristine.

You can't have it both ways. If you want renewable energy we have to build the facilities. Solar goes where there is the most sun, wind goes where there is the most wind, etc. Anything else simply isn't realistic.

392MW of power is obtainable at 100% sunload which is available for 5/6 hours per day.
Since electricity cannot be stored in any viable quantity where will all this clean power be used?
The US does not have a quality interstate "smart Grid System", so the power generated will have to be used locally during an off-peak power usage time period.
I'm glad to see Google taking an active role in producing clean power, I just hope the end user was thought of before starting this project.
I was researching solar power and found it takes $900.00 of solar equipment to light a 100 watt light bulb. Pretty expensive in my book.

@tom Kuchnicki
To light a 100 watt light bulb for 24 hours a day (I think that's what you mean) takes 2400 Wh per day, which means 365 x 2.4 = 876 kWh per year. In 20 years this will take 17.520 kWh. At 10 cents per kWh this would cost you about $1750. I'd prefer that solar equipment for $900!
Besides: what a waste of energy. Better use a 20 W LED bulb! Much more efficient. Use the rest of the solar power for other means :-)

Elias, corporations can to things like this project because they know it will make them money. Government can't, because lobbyists working on behalf of interests who would lose money in any change from the status quo can buy enough Congress-creatures and regulators to stand in the way of obvious public interest. Alternative energy is hardly the only example of that. Perhaps if enough corporations and individual households get really serious about doing whatever they can, whether it's a lot or a little, we can reach a tipping point that will overcome the wealth of the opposition. Then the government will start doing its job.

the invanpah project received $1.6 billion in loan guarantees from the federal dept of energy

These projects are akin to the destruction of the Redwood Forests in the 1800s - 1970s. I don't understand how anybody would view these projects as ecoconscious.
Secondly, energy costs will likely not decrease and the costs to build the infrastructure to transport this energy all the way back to large cities will be passed on to the consumer.
I guarantee you that science will not save the planet. Only decisions to change our lifestyles will protect the earths chemistry and maintain conditions hospitable to humans.

President Obama vowed last night to open up public lands fro development. I will not be voting for his reelection and I hope that many of you make the same decision.