Massive Nevada Solar Farm on BLM

BigHornRam said:
Large scale solar is not cheap. Without the mandates and huge subsidies, it would not happen. Reason it is being pushed in the southwest is because that is where it pencils out the best, and faces the least resistance.

Click to expand...
I know you keep parroting this view, but the numbers don't show that. Rooftop -yes. Utility Scale- No. And the larger the project, the cheaper the electricity is.

www.statista.com

U.S. levelized energy costs by source 2025| Statista

Gas peaking and nuclear power had the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy (LCOE) generation in the United States in 2025.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
 
mtmiller said:
I can't debate this specific solar project since I haven't researched it much to this point. I did see that the proposed, full development foot print would be 62k acres (wow) including roads, power lines, etc...

That being said, and as I am certain you are aware, "a hundred acre site" is not the footprint of a coal fired power plant. I just grabbed the first link on my google machine search.

Someone smarter than me can compare the produced energy.

Maybe we can recontour the coal mine and place solar panels? ;) :LOL:

Either way, there is a huge impact to the land from surface disturbance/disruption and connected actions.

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 5,344 acres (I don't think this includes roads and rails disturbance/disruption?). Who wore it better? 🤷‍♂️
www.gem.wiki

North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine

North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine is an operating coal mine in Wright, Campbell County, Wyoming, United States.
www.gem.wiki www.gem.wiki

The solar pic is a screen grab from a farm in TX.
View attachment 334290View attachment 334291
Click to expand...
When you start to include coal in the discussion you'll have a hard time winning based on many different aspects. They end up needing a lot of space for the surface mine plus the power generation and disposal side.

A more worthwhile debate would be nat gas vs solar since natural gas is a pretty compact package for power generation.


Little bit of a digression from the topic at hand but interesting nonetheless.



As for covering a city in solar panels. Not a terrible idea but it would be more akin to building 500,000 small generators instead of one massive generator. Economics of scale come into play without talking about any technical difficulties related to having that much distributed generation on a grid
 
p_ham said:
Can you expunge more on that? Why would panels on 500,000 Sq ft warehouses be less effective?
Click to expand...
Magnitudes more expensive to build out the same capacity on rooftop vs on the ground.

On these big utility projects there are dozens of semis delivering materials daily for months on end. A rough terrain forklift or front end loader offload them close to the final installation location. Then there’s a fleet of skid steers, forklifts, loaders, etc moving and setting components from there. Now think about how all of that would get unloaded from shipping containers or box trucks and put on a roof, then moved about the roof and put into place without the skid steers/forklifts/loaders. A 500,000 SF roof is 11.5 acres. Most of the big projects are over 1000 acres now days. Economies of scale and the efficiency of layout and cable needs are wildly different between the two.
 
SAJ-99 said:
I know you keep parroting this view, but the numbers don't show that. Rooftop -yes. Utility Scale- No. And the larger the project, the cheaper the electricity is.

www.statista.com

U.S. levelized energy costs by source 2025| Statista

Gas peaking and nuclear power had the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of energy (LCOE) generation in the United States in 2025.
www.statista.com www.statista.com
Click to expand...
messerlikramer.com

Federal Incentives for Commercial Solar Energy Projects

Federal incentives for solarSolar energy is seeing a boom in federal tax incentives as part of a growing effort to make it a financially attractive option for businesses
messerlikramer.com

"The most popular federal incentive for commercial solar power is the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which provides a tax credit of up to 30% of the cost of installing a solar energy system. This credit can be applied to reduce the company’s federal income tax liability, resulting in a significant cost savings. The credit can be applied to both the equipment and installation costs associated with the solar system, and can even be applied to systems that are leased.

In addition to the ITC, businesses can also take advantage of the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) for their solar systems. The MACRS allows businesses to depreciate the cost of the solar system over a period of five years, resulting in a significant tax deduction. This deduction can be claimed in the first year the system is placed in service, allowing businesses to recoup their costs more quickly.

Furthermore, the recently passed Federal Inflation Reduction Act (FIRA) provides many incentives for financing commercial solar energy projects. These incentives can be used to finance up to 80% of the total project cost, making solar energy more accessible and affordable for businesses. These incentives include tax credits, grants and below market rate loans."
 
Wind Gypsy said:
Magnitudes more expensive to build out the same capacity on rooftop vs on the ground.

On these big utility projects there are dozens of semis delivering materials daily for months on end. A rough terrain forklift or front end loader offload them close to the final installation location. Then there’s a fleet of skid steers, forklifts, loaders, etc moving and setting components from there. Now think about how all of that would get unloaded from shipping containers or box trucks and put on a roof, then moved about the roof and put into place without the skid steers/forklifts/loaders. A 500,000 SF roof is 11.5 acres. Most of the big projects are over 1000 acres now days. Economies of scale and the efficiency of layout and cable needs are wildly different between the two.
Click to expand...
Somebody mentioned Vegas earlier. Any city with that much light at night might benefit from renewable considerations mandated as part of any new building permit approval.
 
BigHornRam said:
messerlikramer.com

Federal Incentives for Commercial Solar Energy Projects

Federal incentives for solarSolar energy is seeing a boom in federal tax incentives as part of a growing effort to make it a financially attractive option for businesses
messerlikramer.com

"The most popular federal incentive for commercial solar power is the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which provides a tax credit of up to 30% of the cost of installing a solar energy system. This credit can be applied to reduce the company’s federal income tax liability, resulting in a significant cost savings. The credit can be applied to both the equipment and installation costs associated with the solar system, and can even be applied to systems that are leased.

In addition to the ITC, businesses can also take advantage of the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) for their solar systems. The MACRS allows businesses to depreciate the cost of the solar system over a period of five years, resulting in a significant tax deduction. This deduction can be claimed in the first year the system is placed in service, allowing businesses to recoup their costs more quickly.

Furthermore, the recently passed Federal Inflation Reduction Act (FIRA) provides many incentives for financing commercial solar energy projects. These incentives can be used to finance up to 80% of the total project cost, making solar energy more accessible and affordable for businesses. These incentives include tax credits, grants and below market rate loans."
Click to expand...
Seems to me you both could be right, but what's needed is an up to date assessment of support. In either case, I see the important point being that oil and gas have loads of subsidy/federal assistance help--and IMO we could argue they need it less in many cases.
 
BigHornRam said:
messerlikramer.com

Federal Incentives for Commercial Solar Energy Projects

Federal incentives for solarSolar energy is seeing a boom in federal tax incentives as part of a growing effort to make it a financially attractive option for businesses
messerlikramer.com

"The most popular federal incentive for commercial solar power is the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which provides a tax credit of up to 30% of the cost of installing a solar energy system. This credit can be applied to reduce the company’s federal income tax liability, resulting in a significant cost savings. The credit can be applied to both the equipment and installation costs associated with the solar system, and can even be applied to systems that are leased.

In addition to the ITC, businesses can also take advantage of the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS) for their solar systems. The MACRS allows businesses to depreciate the cost of the solar system over a period of five years, resulting in a significant tax deduction. This deduction can be claimed in the first year the system is placed in service, allowing businesses to recoup their costs more quickly.

Furthermore, the recently passed Federal Inflation Reduction Act (FIRA) provides many incentives for financing commercial solar energy projects. These incentives can be used to finance up to 80% of the total project cost, making solar energy more accessible and affordable for businesses. These incentives include tax credits, grants and below market rate loans."
Click to expand...
Not exactly my point. I'm not saying that the tax incentives don't exist and aren't attractive. After all, that is the point of tax incentives. I'm saying that even without them, the cost is very competitive. These solar tax credits have been around since the mid 2000's. They are very popular and have been renewed by administrations from both parties multiple times. The transition to non-carbon alternatives is going to continue. No one is saving coal. Nuclear is great, but it is expensive. Without some incentives there, Americans will complain about their electric bill like they complain about gas prices.

I don't like big solar fields and their impact on the habitat. Once it is gone, it is gone. But you can see how the comments on this project might skew toward someone in San Fran and someone in rural Nevada agreeing that the habitat has to take one for team USA.

Bonasababy said:
Somebody mentioned Vegas earlier. Any city with that much light at night might benefit from renewable considerations mandated as part of any new building permit approval.
Click to expand...
Las Vegas is already on 100% renewable energy, due to Hoover dam. Has had this claim for many years. This is where it gets tricky. How do you mandate or incentivize one thing in Las Vegas so Los Angeles gets more power from the dam? One answer is you raise electricity prices and let the market handle it, but see my previous comment about Americans and complaining.
 
If someone would tie this project to the partial demise of the precious feral horses, I bet it could be stopped...
 
This, and most all of our policy decisions that revolve around how we maintain/increase our standards of living via human comforts provided at the lowest price possible, was long ago summarized by Aldo Leopold. I think of his below line every time I see these debates about providing resources needed for the immense quality of life Americans enjoy.

“We face the question whether a still higher 'standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free." - A Sand County Almanac

We decide collectively what we are willing to do when it comes to paying for the resources that provide this high standard of living; do we 1) pay in the form of slightly higher financial costs from our own pocketbooks or 2) pay by having significantly lower wildlife/habitat.

There never is a "no cost" alternative. Somebody or some wild thing(s) pay. We can choose to pay more to provide this extremely high standard of living through higher costs needed to accommodate wild things and places. The marginal costs, relative to the value of the output provided, are relatively low to do it in a way that accommodates wild things/places, often adding jobs rather than costing jobs. But, will we do that?

The debates should be about how much are we willing to pay from our own pockets to do it in ways that make accommodation for wildlife. We need energy from all sources. I have no problem with coal, oil, gas, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, or any of them. I need energy and they all have a place in that energy equation. They can all be done in ways that accommodate wildlife at pretty low marginal costs.

Yet, we let the debate be driven by the far fringes who promote a hypocritic fantasy of no energy development and those who want to pay all costs with the currency of wildlife and wild places. It doesn't have to be that way. Unless, we let it be that way.

Leopold's essays are still relevant after 80 years, for a reason. He was pragmatic, he understood our economic system and its many upsides doesn't give much voice to wildlife and habitat, and he understood our history of being willing to liquidate wild resources for the benefit of higher revenue/lower costs.

When it comes to any of these decisions, I view it as a decisions as to what are we willing to pay in the form of very small increases in the price of energy, food, housing, etc. Or to avoid those costs coming from our own pocketbook, what are we willing to pay with the currency of wildlife and habitat?

And when it comes down to this solar/wind v. fossil fuels, both sides are willing to pay the true costs of energy with the currency of our wildlife. The current administration and its willingness to pay for solar and wind with the wildlife and its habitat isn't any different than prior administrations that were willing to pay for fossil fuel energy with lower standards for wildlife. Both sides have planted their partisan flags in one camp or the other. And both sides are unwilling to have the true costs of energy paid by the users of that energy, us, rather letting it be paid with our wildlife/habitat; a decision that deprives future generations of Americans who will never see that habitat or wildlife we are willing to convert to industrial energy zones.

Paying with the currency of wildlife and habitat is generational selfishness and generational subsidy. I say selfish, as this form of wildlife currency allows our current generation to spend our children's wildlife inheritance to avoid paying the true costs for the services we demand today, a subsidy to all of us.
 
Another thing - for comparision sake - the project is about 62k acres and 6.2 GW. 6.2 GW is a lot of power - more than the entire city of las vegas uses on a peak day. Colstrips power plant (not sure on acres with surge pond, plant, etc) was 2.1 GW with a 25k acre mine.
 
Big Fin said:
This, and most all of our policy decisions that revolve around how we maintain/increase our standards of living via human comforts provided at the lowest price possible, was long ago summarized by Aldo Leopold. I think of his below line every time I see these debates about providing resources needed for the immense quality of life Americans enjoy.

“We face the question whether a still higher 'standard of living' is worth its cost in things natural, wild, and free." - A Sand County Almanac

We decide collectively what we are willing to do when it comes to paying for the resources that provide this high standard of living; do we 1) pay in the form of slightly higher financial costs from our own pocketbooks or 2) pay by having significantly lower wildlife/habitat.

There never is a "no cost" alternative. Somebody or some wild thing(s) pay. We can choose to pay more to provide this extremely high standard of living through higher costs needed to accommodate wild things and places. The marginal costs, relative to the value of the output provided, are relatively low to do it in a way that accommodates wild things/places, often adding jobs rather than costing jobs. But, will we do that?

The debates should be about how much are we willing to pay from our own pockets to do it in ways that make accommodation for wildlife. We need energy from all sources. I have no problem with coal, oil, gas, hydro, solar, wind, nuclear, or any of them. I need energy and they all have a place in that energy equation. They can all be done in ways that accommodate wildlife at pretty low marginal costs.

Yet, we let the debate be driven by the far fringes who promote a hypocritic fantasy of no energy development and those who want to pay all costs with the currency of wildlife and wild places. It doesn't have to be that way. Unless, we let it be that way.

Leopold's essays are still relevant after 80 years, for a reason. He was pragmatic, he understood our economic system and its many upsides doesn't give much voice to wildlife and habitat, and he understood our history of being willing to liquidate wild resources for the benefit of higher revenue/lower costs.

When it comes to any of these decisions, I view it as a decisions as to what are we willing to pay in the form of very small increases in the price of energy, food, housing, etc. Or to avoid those costs coming from our own pocketbook, what are we willing to pay with the currency of wildlife and habitat?

And when it comes down to this solar/wind v. fossil fuels, both sides are willing to pay the true costs of energy with the currency of our wildlife. The current administration and its willingness to pay for solar and wind with the wildlife and its habitat isn't any different than prior administrations that were willing to pay for fossil fuel energy with lower standards for wildlife. Both sides have planted their partisan flags in one camp or the other. And both sides are unwilling to have the true costs of energy paid by the users of that energy, us, rather letting it be paid with our wildlife/habitat; a decision that deprives future generations of Americans who will never see that habitat or wildlife we are willing to convert to industrial energy zones.

Paying with the currency of wildlife and habitat is generational selfishness and generational subsidy. I say selfish, as this form of wildlife currency allows our current generation to spend our children's wildlife inheritance to avoid paying the true costs for the services we demand today, a subsidy to all of us.
Click to expand...
Off shore oil royalties pay for the LWCF. Maybe the wind and solar developers can pay a royalty and that can be used to benefit wildlife and habitat?
 
BigHornRam said:
Off shore oil royalties pay for the LWCF. Maybe the wind and solar developers can pay a royalty and that can be used to benefit wildlife and habitat?
Click to expand...
Love the idea. Call Steve Daines and run it by him. The money from leases already go to DOI, but let's change the GAOA to explicitly state that any of these public land projects should help fund the LWCF directly.
 
The single most effective comments - in my opinion - will address migration corridors, fencing, and habitat restoration/remediation post construction and retirement.
 
Last edited:
Understand solar would cost more by installing on roofs but the buildings would see lower cost on cooling because the buffer the solar panels would create.
 
Dave N said:
I would imagine trying to tie multiple smaller arrays into the system would be much more expensive and not nearly as efficient as one large system. Individual businesses might use it for themselves but preparing for the load added to their roofing just to have the juice go elsewhere would probably make people think twice about it.

I'm all for smaller nuke plants scattered around the country. It's not 1960 anymore, things are safer after the lessons we've learned.
Click to expand...
Think the problem with small scale nuke is the amount of security measures and protocols required.
 
mtmiller said:
I can't debate this specific solar project since I haven't researched it much to this point. I did see that the proposed, full development foot print would be 62k acres (wow) including roads, power lines, etc...

That being said, and as I am certain you are aware, "a hundred acre site" is not the footprint of a coal fired power plant. I just grabbed the first link on my google machine search.

Someone smarter than me can compare the produced energy.

Maybe we can recontour the coal mine and place solar panels? ;) :LOL:

Either way, there is a huge impact to the land from surface disturbance/disruption and connected actions.

North Antelope Rochelle Mine 5,344 acres (I don't think this includes roads and rails disturbance/disruption?). Who wore it better? 🤷‍♂️
www.gem.wiki

North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine

North Antelope Rochelle Coal Mine is an operating coal mine in Wright, Campbell County, Wyoming, United States.
www.gem.wiki www.gem.wiki

The solar pic is a screen grab from a farm in TX.
View attachment 334290View attachment 334291
Click to expand...
When a mine is done it is reclaimed. What happens to solar panels in 20 years when they are worn out?
 
ropeup79 said:
When a mine is done it is reclaimed. What happens to solar panels in 20 years when they are worn out?
Click to expand...
Depends. They arent "worn out" after 20 years - many retain 80%+ after 25 years and are warrantied until then.

After its decomissioned - it could be repowered with newer modules or reclaimed.

Like mining, or oil and gas, it needs to be reclaimed ultimately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dcarnell
Corner Crossing Montana Public Forum
Replies
0
Views
289
dcarnell
dcarnell
D
This is interesting…..
Replies
0
Views
554
Deleted member 16864
D
E
Latest APR. SENT TO me by a friend
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
6K
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
R.K.
Proposed Sapphire Mine near Hauser Lake
Replies
10
Views
1K
Hunting Wife
Hunting Wife
mevertsen
Nevada horse comment
Replies
0
Views
549
mevertsen
mevertsen

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
119,702
Messages
2,235,496
Members
38,987
Latest member
CRH1833!

Share this page

Back
Top