I'm waiting for the world's SMALLEST 25 MW power plant. Can't keep trading real estate for juice...

HG

I wonder how much land this plant takes up? Must be huge!

Also, how much energy does a typical coal plant or natural gas plant produce or wind turbin? Sorry but I was just curious at how this actually compares.

Very astute comments! However, I suspect that the solar array takes up about the same amount of real estate as a coal-fired plant would occupy. Which would we rather have?

I'd prefer to see the solar array occupy warehouse roofs rather than bare ground.

Personally, I feel that photovoltaic panels are better suited to wasted rooftop space in urban centers than to large-scale, centralized power stations. Although the installation costs may be higher because you're distributing the same 25MW over many more installations, you're reserving real estate for more efficient solar technologies, such as concentrating solar thermal, which is more difficult to deploy in urban centers. Why not take advantage of wasted space on top of warehouses, shopping malls, apartment buildings, etc? Despite the added costs, it ultimately makes the grid more efficient because the power is being generated in a distributed fashion, nearer to where it is actually consumed. Save the wide open spaces for more efficient collection methods.

Flahooler beat me to the punch. Yeah, PV panels on the roof help you 2x in sunny areas. You get the power and block the Sun that was heating your roof helping your AC.

The claims that solar wastes more land than coal is crazy. The BLM & DOE's own numbers show that the total area nationwide wasted on coal pit mines and ash dumps already cover more land than that required to generate all the US energy needs via thermal solar if it was all located together in the desert between Vegas & California.

Actually, Flahooler, distributed solar can make the grid LESS efficient, as it's currently designed to transmit power in one direction from the plant to the substation to the user.

As such, a surplus of distributed power in one area could in fact be wasted, with no way to get it out and back onto the grid at large.

this is weird because this appears to be a photo of a rooftop system, but i seriously doubt a plant this size is on a single rooftop? more likely, it is being built in

these plants kill off ENORMOUS swathes of intact ecosystems - the average permit requested in the Mojave is 10,000 acres, and there are over 130 of them. they are extremely destructive, and the previous posters are correct - renewable generation belongs on previously developed land only - we need our open spaces to function as open spaces, not as Big Energy Monopoly Sites. not to cheerlead coal, which of course is also hugely destructive, but since someone asked, it uses about 1% of the land for the same output of power.

the grid is entirely capable of accepting incoming power, and needs to be upgraded anyhow. The fact that these mercenaries are trying to lay down hundreds of thousands of miles of new transmission lines so they can re-centralize power rather than allow the people access, seems to show that they have the resources to simply upgrade the lines they have and to leave us in our homes (no eminent domain) and let us participate in the renewable energy free markets. Time for the utilities to become primarily energy balancing, storing and transmitting services, not generation facilities...

these remote plants in wilderness are a scam - until every property has maxed out its conservation and self-generation capacity, we need to leave our intact ecosystems alone.

I'm frustrated by the small size and number of these plants. It's better than nothing, but consider that a typical coal plant produces 400 MW, and all those solar farms combined don't add up to one coal plant. Where are the announcements of dozens of 1GW solar plants going online in the next few years? That's what I'm waiting to hear. Last year, 20GW of wind was added world wide, so what's taking solar so long?

yes, i echo the sentiments on here. surely governments should be investing in grants for households to install solar energy therefore becoming self-sufficient rather than spending a fortune on power plants. i see huge buildings going up all the time in london without any visible sign of solar panels. surely any new builds should have solar panels built in.

Total Solar Energy

The reason you don't hear of 1 GW solar (PV) installations is it is difficult to get that many panels all at once. PV has raw material shortages that limit the amount of panels that can be produced. In 2007, the world installed only 3 GW.

Better to break them up and put them on rooftops, as many have suggested. That way, capacity can be added as it becomes available, and close to the point where it is used.

DK

Municipalities may have legal resources to compel new construction to add energy generation- sharing with the grid technically not impossible, miniaturization of distribution DC not beyond current capability.

Energy efficiency charge to be made per building permit.

The answer to your question is a typical coal fired plant produces much more energy.

Sherco plant near Minneapolis for example produces 2400MW. That's twenty four hundred MW!

This is a good first step, but I like previous comments on installing on rooftops. Makes more sense.

If this is a tree hugger site, isn't CO2 good for trees? :) I like trees as much as the next guy, but let's be realistic.