Large Scale Solar To Become Reality

Well, that's definitely an improvement. There are some areas, however, that solar power faces real problems. The Great Plains and northern Texas would seem to be good places for it, but severe weather in the spring and fall, which often includes hail, could destroy the power collection arrays unless there was some way to shield them properly.

I'm far from being a disciple of The Prophet Algoracle, but any way to get clean energy in an efficient manner is only the right thing to do.

...are what the future is all about.
Nobody has claimed that 'solar stirling' is the last word...
Only that is has emerged as a huge advancement in the field.
Severe weather had to be among the issues addressed before those investors stepped up with what is not exactly chump change.
The southwest has vast areas of empty desert...
(Actually, the world has vast areas of empty desert)
...and even if solar stirling only makes economic sense in such areas, that could still amount to massive electrical capacity, and further improvements are a virtual certainty.
Also, "The exploitation of remote energy sources at low cost... is now feasible and economical for distances never before entertained. For example, transmission systems can be set-up over a distance of as much as 7000 km in d.c and 3000-4000 km in a.c.
"The unit cost of the electric power, transmitted by d.c, shows only small increases when increasing transmission distance..."

http://www.geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles /transmission/cigre/present-limits-of-very-long-distance-tr ansmission-systems/index.shtml
...and that was from a 24 year old study.
So... factor in the inevitable technical advancements and a small percentage of the southwest alone could serve any part of the country.

"A realistic maximum distance for an ac transmission is around 1200 km.

The most powerful HVDC (High Voltage DC) transmission used today has a capacity of around 3000 kW, but an increase by a factor of 2 at least is within the existing technology. There are no practical limitations of line length for an HVDC overhead line."

would be the one to talk to 'bout this stuff.

Are you an electrical engineer or physicist?

I am all for a "mixture" of power generation types (nuclear, coal, hydro, wind, solar, and natural gas/diesel peaking units). Solar's main problems are:

1. The siting of large facilities. Like hydro, there is a limited number of large sites available in the US.

2. At "night" they are a net "drain" on the power grid (auxiliaries must be kept on line but no generation possible).

I am all for this unit as a "Test Case". In fact I have been keeping up with it thru an old friend who is involved. It looks promising. (One problem with your article is your wording that this plant would be larger by a factor of 2.5 than the "average" nuclear unit. I am not sure; but I thought the average nuclear unit was 1200 MW.)

I am also "pushing" (thru the Mississippi Engineering Council and the NSPE) for the manufacture of roofing tiles that are solar panels. Each house becomes a generating site. The problem now is that the "bugs" have not been worked out and the cost is prohibitive for the average home owner. But I consider it a promising idea.

So my authority in these matters is limited, (though I am very much a Scotsman which should account for somthin' in the way of genetic predisposition and all...)
I too am for a comprehensive approach here.
Point 1) Yes, only the Southwest really has the climate and wide open desert spaces for the most efficient use of such a system today, (though it has a great deal of it) and long distance transmission is not without high initial installation costs...
Everything about large scale electrical generation and delivery is expensive...
Point 2) How could long term purchase agreements be signed with top So. CA utilities if that is the case? Curious is all.

Promising test case. Pretty much how I see it.
I arrived at the 'average' figure in a way that admittadly may no longer constitute average... (if current nuclear designs are significantly higher capacity than former designs, though there is a focus on smaller designs today as well...) by taking the total number of reactors worldwide, which one source listed as 420, though since then I see the IAEA reports 439 as of '07... and divided total capacity by that.

Today I see the World Nuclear Association cites 435 'reactors' (not multi-reactor plants?) worldwide with 370,000 MW capacity which would average out to about 850 WM each, which is higher than I originally got... Not sure why and I have no reason to skew things, being pro nuclear too... Palo Verde 2 (AZ) seems to be the largest 'plant' in the US at 1335 MW 'max dependable capacity' from 3 reactors.

I am entirely willing to grant that my initial estimate is not a hard scientific number.
Let's lower it some. Like I say, no dog in the hunt. Just not yet sure what that number should be. Can't just google 'average nuclear reactor capacity' and get an instant answer.
I'de also love to see roofing that could generate power. And I think it will come, eventually. The important thing is to keep pushing forward...
Thanks!

...to reflect your input as follows Gray Ghost:

Solar One and Solar Two (4,500 total acres) will have a combined generating capacity of 1,750 MW. (That would be considerably higher than our largest (3 reactor) nuclear plant).