DOE offers $2.1B conditional commitment loan guarantee to support California solar thermal power plant
19 April 2011
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is offering a conditional commitment for a $2.1 billion loan guarantee to support Units 1 and 2 of the Blythe Solar Power Project, sponsored by Solar Trust of America, LLC. The concentrating solar thermal power plant includes two units comprising a combined 484 megawatt (MW) generating capacity, an eight-mile transmission line and associated infrastructure.
The project will be built adjacent to the City of Blythe in Riverside County, California and is expected to create over 1,000 construction jobs and approximately 80 operations jobs. The plant is estimated to avoid over 710,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from over 123,000 vehicles.
Units 1 and 2 of the Blythe project represent the first phase of a larger project that, when completed, will generate 1,000 MW of solar power using parabolic trough technology. Units 1 and 2 will include HelioTrough collectors, which feature a larger yet simplified design, making them less expensive to build and install, and more efficient than earlier trough technology.
The project will be the first concentrating solar power (CSP) parabolic trough plant to use an air-cooled condenser unit, which will decrease water use by nearly 90% compared with a water-cooled CSP facility. The project will sell all of its electricity output to Southern California Edison and will deliver power into the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) power grid.
The Department of Energy, through the Loan Programs Office, has issued loan guarantees or offered conditional commitments for loan guarantees totaling more than $21 billion to support 22 clean energy projects across 14 states. The program’s 11 generation projects will produce nearly 25 million megawatt-hours annually, enough to power more than two million homes.
I'd much rather see the government doing these kinds activities (renewable energy loans) instead grants and mandates. Also, I'd like to see major tax incentives put in place for renewable energy companies, like the elimination of corporate taxes as well as elimination of capital gains taxes. It's something the Democrats would never do (have to try and tax and control everything that moves) nor the Republicans (have to protect big energy at all costs).
Posted by: ejj | 19 April 2011 at 05:12 AM
Jimmy Carter is the one that created the DOE. Democrats are the ones that created incentives for renewable energy before Reagan cancelled them all and ruined a new growing industry.
Posted by: SJC | 19 April 2011 at 06:42 AM
I have to agree with both of you.
Since shale gas is even dirtier that coal (latest in depth study) and nuclear can be a real disaster (Japan latest), solar and wind energies may be the cleanest and safest solutions for the unforeseeable future.
Posted by: HarveyD | 19 April 2011 at 09:42 AM
I believe the Department of Energy is worthless and should be abolished. All it has done is created a bunch of propped-up government teet suckers. Can anyone name any real accomplishments of this rathole agency? I say rathole because that's where their money goes...down a rathole. The government (including DOE) needs to get out of the business of picking (propping up) winners & losers in renewable energy & just eliminate the corporate taxes and capital gains taxes of the entire renewable energy sector.
Posted by: ejj | 19 April 2011 at 10:25 AM
@ejj: I have to disagree--current DOE is doing good work promoting renewable energy projects.
I agree more tax incentives for renewable energy is a good idea. Also, some kind of national feed in tariff plan for rooftop solar and other kinds of distributed generation could really kick start those developments.
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 19 April 2011 at 11:15 AM
@ejj:
If you change DOE to DOD in your last rant I'd agree with you 100%
Posted by: Mannstein | 19 April 2011 at 12:22 PM
Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Being an army general, I would have thought people would have taken what he had to say seriously, but alas they did not.
Posted by: SJC | 19 April 2011 at 01:54 PM
Er, whose gonna protect us from Al Kiada terrorists trying to blow up the__________________________?? (fill in blank)
Posted by: Reel$$ | 19 April 2011 at 02:00 PM
The latest combined cycle gas plants have gas and steam turbines on the same shaft to save cost, and duct burners to improve response. There is no reason not to add solar thermal to feed the steam turbine and reduce the amount of gas burned during sunny times
Posted by: 3PeaceSweet | 19 April 2011 at 02:09 PM
@ejj "like the elimination of corporate taxes"
Done. Didn't GE claim a huge tax refund for 2010? Apparently too effective?
Posted by: Dave R | 19 April 2011 at 02:44 PM
They got a tax credit, just like they did before the AMT was passed, which is one of the reasons the AMT was passed in the first place.
Posted by: SJC | 19 April 2011 at 03:28 PM
I believe the DOD could definitely use another base realignment and closure commission (BRAC), particularly with our overseas installations. If you do just a little internet research, you'll find an appalling number of installations scattered throughout the world in places of little or no value for national security. For example, do we still need three air bases in Japan (Yokota, Misawa and Kadena) and all the air bases & army posts in Germany, England, Canary Islands, Italy, Spain, and Korea? We could easily shut down half of all the remaining installations & naval installations with no impact on national security.
Posted by: ejj | 19 April 2011 at 05:43 PM
I agree, some of the programs the military does not even want, but some Senator wants it for their state so it goes ahead anyway. The last I heard the $730 billion for the military each year is actually closer to $1.2 trillion because the DOD pays for contractor worker pensions.
Posted by: SJC | 19 April 2011 at 07:12 PM
I wore the uniform proudly and the US military saved the world in the past, but as the only remaining superpower US politicians have changed it's use.
Envision a uniformed killing thug robbing your mom of $2700 daily, $1,000,000 annually, because that's what he costs to occupy another country per year. Multiply this by millions.
I can only imagine what 1,400,000,000 Muslims think as we occupy land sacred to them while they count the millions we killed or orphaned for their oil.
What if nano tech advances leads to cheap ways of weaponizing bacteria? What zip codes will surviving Islam orphans exclude?
Of course, since 50 million US citizens can't afford the American "health care" system - it won't matter.
Posted by: kelly | 19 April 2011 at 08:42 PM
I'm a veteran also, with firsthand knowledge of the vast US military presence overseas --- I was stationed overseas for a while. Our presence in certain places may have necessary long ago, but the world has changed & we are still spending billions on these bases every year. It's insane.
I also think your analogy is pathetic, disgusting and disgraceful. The muslims allowed many in their midst to attack us; we didn't start it. If they can't figure out a way to stop producing terrorists, I strongly believe we should have a presence in the muslim world indefinitely. This "presence" can & should include the ever-expanding use of armed drones so we are physically "occupying" less and less. But a more proper analogy of the muslims is of the Germans of the 1930's --- being sympathetic to the Nazis, which where a menace to humanity.
Posted by: ejj | 20 April 2011 at 05:17 AM
ejj, in the FIRST US Gulf Oil War(1990-91), Bush the First promised to LEAVE Arab soil when the war ended. TWO more days of fighting, a weekend, would have crushed the Republican Guard - thus eliminating Saddam Hussein, his sons, and any SECOND US Gulf Oil War(2003 - pres. - future).
But leaving Middle East oil was never any oil Bushs intent.
In other words, after TEN YEARS of "No fly zones" with armed US combat jets overhead and US military bases throughout their countries maybe Arabs think WE STARTED IT long before 911.
Would you or I watch Arab combat jets over the US for TEN YEARS, do nothing, and think we started terror?
Muslims are over 20% of the world's population. The most substantial Muslim terrorist act in twenty years only involved half a platoon(~20) and even then they had to use our planes.
As for my analogy, the military costs are correct and come from US taxpayers. The IRS, DOD, .. make sure we're all one of those. Entitlements(money, and interest earned since 1935 Social Security payroll deductions began have already been paid-in-full) are stolen(from you, me, my mom too) for US war and debt.
It's the only savings the US Government has!
Our government is raising entitlement deductions and age limits to pay for oil wars. If our Social Security benefits were to begin at, say 100 years of age and 99 percent of us are dead by then the problem is solved.
Posted by: kelly | 20 April 2011 at 08:16 AM
Michael Moore (kelly): Are you really that clueless? Overflowing with blind hate, just like the jihadists? GHW didn't go to Baghdad in Gulf War I because the UN resolutions didn't call for it. Should he have? In my view, yes, even if meant dissolution of the coalition assembled to liberate Kuwait. The no-fly zone was over IRAQ. The 9/11 terrorists came from AFGHANISTAN with funding from SAUDI ARABIA. Do you even care about justice for 9/11? Do you even care about American national security? Obviously not.
Maybe Donald Trump is right...the next time we have to deal with one of these oil rich countries, we control their oil fields with our army & sell the oil on the world market until our costs & debt are paid for...then they can have their oil fields back.
Maybe Rush Limbaugh is right, that Obama & the Democrats are recklessly running our country directly into the ground intentionally, so a socialist/marxist state can emerge. I'm really starting to believe it more and more based on the total disconnect between the words of our marxist/liar-in-chief & his deeds.
Posted by: ejj | 20 April 2011 at 10:04 AM
"GHW didn't go to Baghdad in Gulf War I because the UN resolutions didn't call for it." Right, all he had to do was finish bombing the Republican Guard(how appropriate) ON THE BATTLEFIELD.
"The no-fly zone was over IRAQ." Exactly, what did ten years over IRAQ do with a rescued Kuwait?
"The 9/11 terrorists came from AFGHANISTAN.." 18 of the 20 were SAUDI ARABIA citizens.
"Do you even care about American national security?" The Bush "new order" oil occupations made new US enemies in a 1.4 billion person religion. You call that security?
While you may have some points, bringing Trump and Limbaugh into anything won't help.
"At least 919,967 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates." http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq ..
ejj, do 300 dead Iraqis(+ maybe a terrorist) per dead American satisfy your justice?
How about oil/war debt bankrupting the US, because a $million/US soldier/year on Arab turf is what Osama bin Laden wrote and dreamed about.
He only needed US leaders stupid enough to take the bait..
Posted by: kelly | 20 April 2011 at 12:43 PM
Michael Moore (kelly):
"what did ten years over IRAQ do with a rescued Kuwait?" - Maybe you need to talk with Bill Clinton about that one?
"18 of the 20 were SAUDI ARABIA citizens." - trained in Afghanistan, directed by Osama Bin Laden...think: Tora Bora.
"The Bush "new order" oil occupations made new US enemies in a 1.4 billion person religion. You call that security?" - Ultimately Yes. Afghanistan & Pakistan are terrorist eradication expeditions. As if Obama's Odyssee Dawn in Libya isn't making enemies? If we don't get Qadafi at this point, we can only expect more terrorist acts from that turd.
"At least 919,967 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates" - The vast majority of which is Muslim on Muslim violence...what a noble peace-loving religion you defend!
"How about oil/war debt bankrupting the US, because a $million/US soldier/year on Arab turf is what Osama bin Laden wrote and dreamed about." - The US wasn't truly bankrupt until Obama ramped up the national debt by 5 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it except 2 years of prolonged 10 percent unemployment. The housing collapse, thanks to Chris Countrywide Dodd and Barney Banking Queen Frank was a sucker punch...but now after the Obama regime our country is truly stumbling and about ready to fall down on the mat.
Posted by: ejj | 20 April 2011 at 06:21 PM
The discussion went from the DOE to the DOD. Twenty years after the end of the cold war we spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined. Until we can correct that we will just be fooling ourselves on the way to the poor house.
Posted by: SJC | 21 April 2011 at 09:52 AM
"The discussion went from the DOE to the DOD. Twenty years after the end of the cold war we spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined. Until we can correct that we will just be fooling ourselves on the way to the poor house." AGREED
Posted by: kelly | 21 April 2011 at 06:20 PM
SJC: Totally agree. Paying 100% for Air Force bases and Army bases in Korea is insane when the South Koreans can either reimburse us completely or fend for themselves. It is the same in numerous other countries...Japan, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Turkey, Portugal (the Azores). There are so many detachments & satellite facilities associated with these bases it'll make your head spin.
Posted by: ejj | 21 April 2011 at 06:32 PM
Transfer segment - "What did ten years over IRAQ do with a rescued Kuwait?" - Maybe you need to talk with Bill Clinton about that one? -- OK, Clinton(and others) can't undo Bush mistakes, but we agree Bushs were wrong.
Posted by: kelly | 21 April 2011 at 06:53 PM
Transfer segment - Agreed, "18 of the 20 were SAUDI ARABIA citizens.." So why didn't we invade the Saudi's - Bush's oil b**t buddies(hint).
"The Bush "new order" oil occupations made new US enemies in a 1.4 billion person religion. You call that security?" - Ultimately Yes. Afghanistan & Pakistan are terrorist eradication expeditions.."
Hey, Pakistan IS OUR BUSH CERTIFIED ALLY and has been since our 2002 Afghan and 2003 Iraq "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" VICTORIES.
Posted by: kelly | 21 April 2011 at 06:54 PM
Xfer seg - "At least 919,967 people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the U.S. and coalition attacks, based on lowest credible estimates" - The vast majority of which is Muslim on Muslim violence...what a noble peace-loving religion you defend!" THANKS FOR PROVING MY POINT, LIKE VIETNAM - WE DON'T BELONG THERE!!! (aka - no dominoes, "Graveyard of Empires",..)
Posted by: kelly | 21 April 2011 at 06:55 PM