In addition to what is operating now, there is a lot more already planned:

SCE has contracted for 500-850MW from Stirling Energy Systems (SES).
SDG&E has contracted for 300-900MW from SES.
PG&E has a 553-megawatt power purchase agreement with Solel-MSP-1, a subsidiary of Israel-based Solel Thermal Systems.
PG&E has a 177-megawatt solar thermal power purchasing agreement with Ausra.
PG&E has also entered an agreement with BrightSource Energy for a 500-megawatt plan to be announced soon, according to RedHerring.com.

NREL estimates CSP could achieve $0.07/kWh, which is quite competitive. There is plenty of potential CSP sites, more than enough to replace coal and gasoline in the U.S.

Great information, Earl. Is there someplace to go to keep track of this sort of thing or did you have to scrape it together?

This is encouraging. Five starts -- pretty good but I wish it was fifty.

We need to promote solar power on every business and residential roof top in America. This would bring the power back to the people, help stabiloize the grid and decentralize energy needs. This will free us from any stranglehold from any lobbyists that do not have our best interests in mind. I know right now it is expensive for people to install solar energy even with tax rebates but this cost would come down rapidly with increased output.

Jon, I've been interested in renewable energy for a long time, so I just collect what I see (mostly from NREL, EIA, DOE, and other government sources, occasionally from industry). Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) seems the best to me because some CSP technologies can provide baseload electricity with something called Thermal Energy Storage, though wind is useful too, and geothermal is great where it is available. CSP provides power during the day when demand is greatest (e.g. due to summer AC). Wind often generates best at night.

So I guess that means "scrape" is the answer to your query.

Some calculations, in case they help:
2006 U.S. electricity sales: 3,817 TWh (TWh = 1,000,000,000 kilo watt hours)
Land area required to generate this much power with CSP: 14,500 sq. mi.
2006 U.S. electricity sales if California efficiency standards had been in place: 2,227 TWh
Land area required to generate this much power with CSP: 8,500 sq. mi.
U.S. fossil fuel electricity in 2006: 2,868 TWh
Land area required to just replace fossil fuel electricity with CSP: 11,200 sq. mi.
CSP potential in U.S. West rated "premium" or "excellent" according to NREL: 1,642 TWh on 6,091 sq. mi.
(they also have another 456 TWh in the "good" category)
2005 Vehicle Miles Traveled in U.S.: 2.7 trillion
Land area required for Concentrated Solar Power to replace gasoline with electricity: 3,607 sq. mi.
Land area required for switchgrass ethanol to replace gasoline: 224,794 sq. mi.
NREL's estimate for future CSP electricity cost: $0.07/kWh (http://www.nrel.gov/csp/1000mw_initiative.html)
Average sales price of electricity in U.S.: $0.09/kWh

Stirling Energy Systems says their CSP is already

Land area of Iraq (for comparison to above): 169,234 sq. mi.
Eventual cost of Iraq war: over one trillion dollars
Cost of 1,642 TWh of CSP: about one trillion dollars
(based on $700 million for 500 MW for Stirling Energy Systems and Southern California Edison project at Victorville)

jamkou reminds us about promoting rooftop photovoltaics (PV). In that regard, it helps to consider the top PV install locations are Germany, Japan, and California. In much of the rest of the U.S. PV is not as economic because other states don't have the right policies.

(1) Efficient use of energy (e.g. California, Japan, and Germany, but not the U.S. Californians used 6,732 kWh per capita in 2003, whereas the U.S. average was 11,997 kWh per capita, or 78% more.) Efficiency is cheaper than PV, so it pays to do that first. If you're already efficient, PV may make sense.
(2) High retail electricity rates (e.g. California and Japan, maybe Germany--note: high rates do not mean high bills; California's are about the same as the rest of the nation because of efficiency)
(3) Rebates (e.g. California, maybe Germany)
(4) Time of Use (TOU) net metering available
(e.g. California, probably others)
(5) High insolation (e.g. California, but definitely not Germany)

Of these, I suspect #4, TOU net metering, is the most important. I sell electricity noon to six at $0.29/kWh and buy it at night at $0.09/kWh. This is OK with the utilities because they pay much more for peaking power during the afternoon.

jamkou reminds us about promoting rooftop photovoltaics (PV). In that regard, it helps to consider the top PV install locations are Germany, Japan, and California. In much of the rest of the U.S. PV is not as economic because other states don't have the right policies.

(1) Efficient use of energy (e.g. California, Japan, and Germany, but not the U.S. Californians used 6,732 kWh per capita in 2003, whereas the U.S. average was 11,997 kWh per capita, or 78% more.) Efficiency is cheaper than PV, so it pays to do that first. If you're already efficient, PV may make sense.
(2) High retail electricity rates (e.g. California and Japan, maybe Germany--note: high rates do not mean high bills; California's are about the same as the rest of the nation because of efficiency)
(3) Rebates (e.g. California, maybe Germany)
(4) Time of Use (TOU) net metering available
(e.g. California, probably others)
(5) High insolation (e.g. California, but definitely not Germany)

Of these, I suspect #4, TOU net metering, is the most important. I sell electricity noon to six at $0.29/kWh and buy it at night at $0.09/kWh. This is OK with the utilities because they pay much more for peaking power during the afternoon.

jamkou reminds us about promoting rooftop photovoltaics (PV). In that regard, it helps to consider the top PV install locations are Germany, Japan, and California. In much of the rest of the U.S. PV is not as economic because other states don't have the right policies.

(1) Efficient use of energy (e.g. California, Japan, and Germany, but not the U.S. Californians used 6,732 kWh per capita in 2003, whereas the U.S. average was 11,997 kWh per capita, or 78% more.) Efficiency is cheaper than PV, so it pays to do that first. If you're already efficient, PV may make sense.
(2) High retail electricity rates (e.g. California and Japan, maybe Germany--note: high rates do not mean high bills; California's are about the same as the rest of the nation because of efficiency)
(3) Rebates (e.g. California, maybe Germany)
(4) Time of Use (TOU) net metering available
(e.g. California, probably others)
(5) High insolation (e.g. California, but definitely not Germany)

Of these, I suspect #4, TOU net metering, is the most important. I sell electricity noon to six at $0.29/kWh and buy it at night at $0.09/kWh. This is OK with the utilities because they pay much more for peaking power during the afternoon.

Solar Power will be the way as Thermal Storage is more efficient than electricity storage, apparently.

That is what Ausra is working on.

Watch out for Ausra.

But it is very nice to hear that Stirling Engines are being looked at seriously again because they have the record for efficiency.

As for solar cells I would be demanding that they get cheaper, first, and I would be careful not to pay too much for "Green" electricity until our Governments stop subsiding Global Warming with our tax dollars.

As someone else said: 5 starts is nice but 50 would be better!