dean wrote on July 01, 2009 11:32 AM: Why is nevada so interested in building centralized solar generating plants? Just follow the money! If harry Reid would back distrubited solar ( rooftop arrays) we could provide the same energy to nevada with no maintenance and no destroying the desert! Give the homeowners a federal grant instead of a tax credit. we could match the energy output of all the centralized plants in half the time and 2/3 the cost!

Solar Forces wrote on June 30, 2009 11:57 PM: Las Vegas has never received more than 18% of the power generated by the Hoover dam. That power was meant for and has always gone to Southern California.

Nevada gets on average 7 1/2 hours a day of sun, with the most productive hours between 9am and 3pm. The Mojave desert has more sunny days and stronger solar power than anywhere in the US.

Let's keep the issue of oil and coal separate. Oil is of course the concern for transportation, while coal is the power source for generating electricity. Coal power plants produce twice as much green house gas as all transportation pollution combined. What is the viable solution for transportation? I believe it's natural gas. Electric cars, well, require electricity, which is presently produced largely by coal.

Solar energy is the only logical solution for Nevada to move forward.

patrick wrote on June 29, 2009 09:18 PM: Thank you President Obama!

The first blow has been landed and we are on our way to putting down the threat that big oil poses to this country.

The day will come when this country will look back on the 50 plus years of turmoil created because of this country's dependence on foreign oil as a travesty. When this country is creating millions of high technology jobs which will pay higher wages, and permit this country to regain its leadership in the world as the dynamo it formerly was before companies like Exxon and Chevron strangled it with a noose of oil.

No longer will this country and its citizens look with trepidation at the problems in the Middle East and wonder what dire consequences will fall on this country should a lunatic take over "our" oil wells, or block some transit point, which strangles our economy.

WE, will control our destiny again, and it will be in great measure due to President Obama's leadership.

I say, on behalf of Nevada, which I expect to be on the forefront of technology, thank you President Obama!

zack wrote on June 29, 2009 09:01 PM: 670,000 acres of public land set aside for solar power. 670,000 acres of land lost to Off Highway Vehicle community. I know most of you don't care about OHV recreation on public lands but almost all the power plant permits in southern NV are on the remaining public land that the BLM allows OHV to host off-road races and recreation. They have no plans to reestablish the lost OHV recreation land, if you own a jeep, ATV or motorcycle - enjoy hunting on a 4-wheeler/jeep you better start writing some letters because they are going to shut you out of your public lands, especially the Jean/Roach area which is one of the closest areas to las vegas where you can legally ride/race an OHV. Last but not least it is funny how OHV recreationalists have to stay on trails and pay big money host organized events in these solar power areas and now the government is going to level these areas and totally destroy all this precious tortoise habitat. I want to know if Reid and Ensign are going to make the BLM reopen some of the closed areas to replace the land that is going to be closed to the OHV community.

Rmoen wrote on June 29, 2009 08:39 PM: Shame on you Ms. Robison for saying that a solar plant outperforms a roughly same sized coal plant. When in fact, the solar is only producing about a third of the time and the coal plants produces 75% of the time. By the way, nuclear reactors produce over a 90% rate. Let's keep the discussion honest.

-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanusa.com

Too_much_government wrote on June 29, 2009 08:13 PM: If the government would just get out the way, we'd have more than enough energy to go around. At the lowest possible prices. From a variety of sources. Coal, nuclear, hyrdo, clean, dirty. You name it. Energy policy is just another lame excuse to make government bigger, and promises to have as much positive impact as government education policy.

avatar wrote on June 29, 2009 07:37 PM: WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday released a list of 44 coal-fired power plant waste sites in 10 states with a high hazard potential, including 12 sites in North Carolina , seven in Kentucky and a large storage pond in Pennsylvania .

The true cost of carbon based energy is never truly revealed. Yes, solar will stop the sun from hitting the ground, but it won't require billions of dollars in order to "clean up" the sites when they are done.

The December spill in Kingston flooded 300 acres and released coal ash into the Emory and Clinch rivers in Tennessee . No one was killed, but homes and other property were damaged. The TVA estimated cleanup costs at up to $825 million .

NOsense wrote on June 29, 2009 05:41 PM: Solar makes no sense for Nevada! We have Hoover to provide us with all of the electricity we will ever need. If So-Cal needs more power, then it is their problem-o. Protect Nevada's fragile environment and demand NO solar panels.

AskHarry wrote on June 29, 2009 05:37 PM: Photovoltaics are interesting to ponder.

Why put them anywhere near Las Vegas? Las Vegas has Hoover Dam to provide electricity.

So the answer must be that So-Cal or Arizona needs more electricity. Then why not put “them” photovoltaics in So-Cal and/or Arizona. One cannot store AC electricity, so it has to be used immediately upon production.

Now about solar panels. They do not produced electricity at night. They produce minimal electricity before sunrise and after sunset. So their peak production is basically between 10 AM and 2 PM – and this is near the summer Solstice. The closer we get to the winter Solstice the worse solar panels production gets.

Hoover Dam’s peak production is 24-hours a day x 365 days a year.

OK, so “them” politicians want to put solar panels in the high desert to feel good -- I feel bad about it all. The high desert produces dust. When dust collects on the panels it drastically cuts electrical output -- look at the electrical production problems with the Rovers on Mars when dust accumulates on their panels!

OK, so the high desert environment is fragile. Consider 5,000 acres of solar panels all facing south at 45 degrees. All of a sudden 50% of the 5,000 acres will be in shade -- for the past billion-trillon years it has enjoyed bright sunlight. Well, plants can’t grow with 50% less sunlight, so it will be more windy and that will put more dust in the air. And reptiles and creepy bugs depend on full sunlight to survive. And the endangered desert tortoise will freak out and probably die.

So why Nevada for solar panels when we have all of the electricity we need from Hoover?

Politics!

Ask Harry to explain.

Too_much_government wrote on June 29, 2009 05:24 PM: The effort will set aside 670,000 acres of [BLM] property inside 24 zones in Nevada, California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.

The politics of energy. Insiders score, customers get shafted.

The Solar constant is 1366 watts/m². Assuming solar panels were 100% energy efficient, how large would your solar panel need to be to power Las Vegas on a typical summer day? Assume peak usage is 7K MW and neglect distribution losses.

Using these values, 1 m² of solar panel would be capable of producing 1.366 kW of power. Southern Nevada's peak usage is around 7,000 MegaWatts, so you would need:

7,000,000,000 W ÷ 1,366 W/m*m = 5,124,451 meters² (about 2 square miles.

Of course, the best solar panels are really only ~25% efficient, and at sea level, solar radiation is only about 1.02 kW. Therefore, using current technology, your panel would have to cover ~27 square kilometers.

Hugely EXPENSIVE. Even if industrial-sized panels cost just 10¢/W (the manufacturing tech/vol isn't even close to that, yet) at 10% efficiency -- reflecting lower priced tech -- you would need more than 2X the panel area previously estimated (batteries not included). To save on distribution costs, you would have to install the panels reasonably close to the city. Probably less than 50 miles away. Even Maybe we can put them along the Strip? Then you have the cost of high-tech battery systems. But when did economics ever matter to crooked polticians?

Read All Comments