back to article Google-backed solar electricity facility sets itself on fire

A troubled heliostatic power station is set to hit the anti-renewables meme-factories, after misaligned mirrors set the tower on fire. The Google-backed, US$2.2 billion Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System generates power by focussing sunlight on boilers at the top of three 140-metre (439-foot) towers and using the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Call Bond.

    Scaramanga has stolen the solex agitator again.

  2. frank ly

    Predicting Problems

    With all those mirrors, you'd have thought they'd have made a few extra ones and covered the 'delicate' parts of the towers with a reflective surface, precisely for this fault situation.

    1. Dwarf
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Predicting Problems

      Surely that just moves the problem to somewhere else, like an outbuilding or neighbouring house, etc.

      Think of the halls of mirrors, it would be like Russian roulette, optical edition.

      Better software that has exclusion zones for places the power can't go would be a more robust solution

      1. RIBrsiq
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Predicting Problems

        >> Surely that just moves the problem to somewhere else.

        Not if the mirrors -- if they can be made at all, note: they'd need to withstand much more intense, focused rays -- were angled to reflect mis-aimed beams upwards.

        Helicopter icon because said reflected beams may still hit an unfortunate one in the wrong place by chance... Would make for a hell of a movie-plot threat, that: terrorists hacking the control systems of a solar power plant to burn passenger jets out of the sky and discredit the renewable energy industry to hasten the End of the World, etc.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Joke

          Re: Predicting Problems

          Maybe it was this way Google buildings were set afire...

          1. m0rt

            Re: Predicting Problems

            Imagine going nuts with a laser pen in there...

        2. Dwarf

          Re: Predicting Problems

          Up is somewhere else.

        3. Horridbloke

          Re: Predicting Problems

          "Would make for a hell of a movie-plot threat..."

          Die Hard From A Nasty Sunburn.

        4. Stoneshop
          Boffin

          Re: Predicting Problems

          Helicopter icon because said reflected beams may still hit an unfortunate one in the wrong place by chance..

          Even if all of the primary mirrors (the ones that focus the sunlight on the top of the tower) were misaligned and hitting a safeguard mirror (one that is intended to reflect a beam that would otherwise hit a part of the tower that's not meant to be hit), the result would be a beam spreading out from that safeguard mirror. At double the height of the tower the beam would then be spread out over an area equal to the area covered by the mirrors on the ground, and the intensity of the reflected light at that point would be not more than the intensity of the sunlight itself, but from below instead of from the sky. The only caveat being the safeguard mirror being able to withstand the energy absorbed by it.

          Simple optics, really.

          And blasting a jet out of the sky would need the mirrors to track it for minutes. Pretty infeasible given the speed with which those mirrors move; not that that would bother a Hollywood script writer.

          1. 100113.1537

            Re: Predicting Problems

            "And blasting a jet out of the sky would need the mirrors to track it for minutes. Pretty infeasible given the speed with which those mirrors move; not that that would bother a Hollywood script writer."

            Have you watched any Hollywood movies lately? This is way more feasible than most plots.

            1. Stoneshop

              Re: Predicting Problems

              Have you watched any Hollywood movies lately?

              Actually, no. Last one was a Jordanian movie, and the one before that was Mønti Pythøn ik den Hølie Gräilen. Before that, I have no frigging idea, it was that long ago

          2. Chris Evans

            Re: Predicting Problems. Convex?

            Having a safeguard mirror that was slight convex in one or both axis would distribute the light over an even larger area.

            But the main problem would be the necessary area that would need safeguarding, it would include a lot of the tower structure as cables will be running all the way down the tower. This would significantly increase the weight and the wind resistance requiring a stronger tower. Sensitive parts near the designed 'light collection' point should though be protected.

            There could also be a system that checks the main collector is getting the light level expected and set off an alarm if not, Also it could unfocus the beam if not corrected within an appropriate time scale.

        5. dajames

          Re: Predicting Problems

          Not if the mirrors -- if they can be made at all, note: they'd need to withstand much more intense, focused rays -- were angled to reflect mis-aimed beams upwards.

          ... or if those mirrors were made convex, so that they would defocus the beams making them (relatively) harmless.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: Predicting Problems

      We've been melting salt with solar for decades. The "aiming" tech is well known. The gootard-backed company is obviously incompetent when it comes to this technology.

    3. Adam 1

      Re: Predicting Problems

      Surely a far simpler solution would be to lower the shutters over the mirrors. I should patent the idea. Except it is probably what they actually did. I know, on a mobile device ....

      1. Bob H

        Re: Predicting Problems

        It was a misalignment, so some of the mirrors that reflect light were off-point and no one noticed until it was too late.

        1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

          Re: Predicting Problems

          Quite likely. However with this kind of engineering and design the default position and/or configuration should be "safe", which is the general requirement for many industrial systems. Any lack of power or "incident" response should return the mirror to a default "safe" state (good luck with this on a power loss scenario). Part of this was probably in place, however automatic monitoring systems in the tower should have triggered an "incident" alert and all or some of the mirrors should have switched to a safe alignment automatically. Now implement this to a very strict build and maintenance budget...

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Predicting Problems

            "Safe alignment"? That would be due North, or face-down. That would require far greater range of motion than normal operation...

            1. Cynic_999

              Re: Predicting Problems

              "

              Safe alignment"? That would be due North, or face-down

              "

              I believe the usual method is to move each mirror to a pre-set different direction, ensuring that no matter what direction the Sun is, they cannot reflect in the same direction.

              1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

                Re: Predicting Problems

                The mirror(s) pointing upward would be safe, too. (See post above. Okay, sunglasses wouldn't hurt.) This could be achieved by adding a counterweight - in case of power failure all mirrors tilt upward thanks to gravity. If one or several mirrors stop tracking correctly, pull the plug on them - mirrors tilt upwards.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Predicting Problems

            "Any lack of power or "incident" response should return the mirror to a default "safe" state"

            Quite. What bunch of presentation-layer-pillocks designed this setup.

            "good luck with this on a power loss scenario"

            Thanks for the luck, but maybe what might be more useful is a big battery or even an actual generator, supplying a dedicated and possbly duplicated distribution setup for the critical equipment. And a regular test routine, just in case. A bit like the shutdown systems used to have on an oil rig (I haven't looked for ages, don't know if they still do).

            "automatic monitoring systems in the tower should have triggered an "incident" alert and all or some of the mirrors should have switched to a safe alignment automatically. "

            Indeed.

            But then the safety critical software sector has only been around since (say) the 1960s when the first full authority digital engine controls (with no analogue backup) arrived (Concorde?).

            Google probably specified the use of Agile and Android rather than Ada (not that Ada is a panacea).

            So much to forget, so little time.

      2. Stoneshop
        Holmes

        Re: Predicting Problems

        Surely a far simpler solution would be to lower the shutters over the mirrors.

        A sprinkler system at the top of the tower, but spreading mud* instead of water. If it needs to work in case of power loss it should be driven by a bunch of cylinders with compressed air.

        * or see icon.

        1. Adam 1

          Re: Predicting Problems

          > If it needs to work in case of power loss it should be driven by a bunch of cylinders with compressed air

          Yeah, it's not a PV array. The tower already contains thousands of L of superheated stream because, you know, it's kinda how the whole contraption actually works. Pretty sure they can figure out a way of converting some of that energy.

          A spring loaded (or even gravity dropped) shutter could cut the power entirely within seconds for relatively little cost. Both could be passively activated.

  3. msknight

    Archimedes would be proud

    ...so would Darwin. Shame they don't win an award this time around.

    Not that I hate Google, or anything, you understand.... much...

  4. Youngdog

    Our old enemy - the Sun!

    (shakes fist at the sky) Grrr. Damn you!

    1. Stoneshop
      Coat

      Re: Our old enemy - the Sun!

      They've been borged by Oracle since some years; not that they are less of an enemy anyway.

      The one with the pockets bulging with orange DEC RDB binders.

  5. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    Mirror misalignment

    That some mirrors were misaligned is one thing, that cables were able to be exposed in the first place is another.

    Couldn't they have put a barrier around the cables to ensure that a stray concentration would just hit concrete instead of something flammable ?

    1. Killing Time

      Re: Mirror misalignment

      It does appear there are some design issues which need to be worked out. This would probably explain why they are not achieving their supply commitments, that requires reliability over and above achieving 'capacity'.

      It is a little concerning as they are not the first entry into this generation technology.

  6. Charles 9

    Supply commitments?

    Sure, 100,000 homes sounds dandy...until you realize that according to the 2010 Census, Los Angeles County has 12 million homes...by itself. And California is the largest state in the union population-wise AND has another major metropolis further north in San Francisco, where conditions for renewable power generation are less ideal (at least Los Angeles is close to a desert).

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. FlashJackFromGundagai

        Re: Supply commitments?

        Here is the future of renewable energy... http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/germanys-green-energy-destabilizing-electric-grids/ !

        1. cyberdemon Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Closing nuclear in favour of coal..

          Is beyond retarded.

          For a start, if it's radioactive waste you're concerned about, then the stuff that comes out of coal stacks is actually very radioactive as well, possibly dirtier than nuclear waste. Per GWh, I expect it's even worse for coal.

          That's not even counting all the other nasties that come out of burning coal (carcinogenic nanoparticles, exotic hydrocarbons, sulphur, never mind the CO2) and the kind of coal that Germany has (lignite) is the worst of the worst for all of these.

          So let's all build Biomass power plants & burn trees imported on from South America on Diesel boats. That sounds like a better idea Eh?

          Seriously though, the real trouble with nuclear is that nobody will define a "safe limit" for radiation. (A sensible level might be the background levels in naturally high-background areas such as Cornwall, where people have thrived for centuries) (cue Cornish jokes). Instead, we have "ALARA" and the "Linear No-Threshold Model" which make the assumption that any release of radioactivity, however small (even 100s of times below the background level) is going to harm *something*, and that ANY measure to reduce it, however expensive, is *legally* mandated. This only applies to the "nuclear" sector of course, and if the fossil fuels sector were held to the same standard then they would be just as expensive as Nuclear.

          I find it odd that people are more afraid of "safe" things going wrong than "unsafe" things operating normally (i.e. killing people every day). "So&So was killed in a plane crash? OMG WTF I WILL NEVER FLY AGAIN!!!1" "So&So died in a car accident? MEH! Cars Do That."

          I can only assume it's a "fear of the unknown" thing, and that until the general population become nuclear physicists, everyone who isn't will always fear this invisible yet eminently detectable poison.

          The nice thing about nuclear power is that all the waste is nicely contained in one place, which makes it easy to clean up (contrast to fossil fuels where its spread all over the flipping atmosphere). And the nice thing about radioactive waste is that it is detectable from a mile off, making it easy to spot. But therefore a nightmare for OCD sufferers perhaps?

          ** DISCLAIMER: I DO work in the nuclear sector, although not in Fission Power. I work on Remote Handling robots that clean up all the Sperm Germs that everyone is so afraid of **

      2. Charles 9

        Re: Supply commitments?

        "When an article says "power for 'x' homes", it means it makes 'x' times 3kW or so. (in this case, 2.8kW) This power will not power the heating system, so the house's heating needs to be 'powered' some other way."

        For a place like LA County, it's the cooling, and for LA County that's saying something since they have pretty intense cooling needs: torrid climate, frequent heat waves, on the coast so it's moist heat that can't be sweated off easily, AND it's in a thermal inversion zone that traps the heat at ground level, keeping it from rising out of the way and allowing sea breezes from the Pacific to cool things down.

        1. Tom 7

          Re: Supply commitments? Cooling?

          Well they have gas fridges so why the hell not solar powered aircon? You could use the mirrors to shield the property too!

          1. Notional Semidestructor
            Pint

            Re: Supply commitments? Cooling?

            Tom7 said:

            "Well they have gas fridges so why the hell not solar powered aircon? You could use the mirrors to shield the property too!"

            Yes, Tom,

            Solar refrigeration does work - bit clunky so far, but it works, and with R707 (or similar)...

            see: http://www.energy-concepts.com/_pages/app_isaac_solar_ice_maker.htm

            We have a historic kero-powered 'fridge in my shed - it contains beer.

            Now, where's that big fresnel lens?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Supply commitments?

          For a place like LA County, it's the cooling, and for LA County that's saying something since they have pretty intense cooling needs: torrid climate, frequent heat waves, on the coast so it's moist heat that can't be sweated off easily, AND it's in a thermal inversion zone that traps the heat at ground level, keeping it from rising out of the way and allowing sea breezes from the Pacific to cool things down.

          Ban aircon. People will quickly move somewhere more sensible.

        3. Florida1920

          Re: Supply commitments?

          For a place like LA County, it's the cooling, and for LA County that's saying something since they have pretty intense cooling needs:

          Maybe the smartest move is to move LA? If the planet is heating up for whatever reason, insisting on living in increasingly inhospitable environments makes no sense.

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

            Re: Supply commitments?

            "Maybe the smartest move is to move LA?"

            That'd get my vote... The Alaskan Riviera should do very nicely.

            BTW: The Toasters - Weekend In LA

          2. Stoneshop

            Re: Supply commitments?

            Maybe the smartest move is to move LA?

            San Andreas could help there.

      3. MacroRodent

        Re: Supply commitments?

        Even a worst-case accident in a solar power plant will not leave the surrounding are contaminated for centuries.

        But actually I pretty much agree about nuclear power. In *competent hands* modern nuclear power plants are quite safe. The problem is, running them really requires a culture with a strict work ethic, and fanatical focus on quality. And don't build them in tectonically unstable places, or next to a tsunami-ridden ocean...

        1. Adam 52 Silver badge

          Re: Supply commitments?

          "But actually I pretty much agree about nuclear power. In *competent hands* modern nuclear power plants are quite safe."

          Who would those competent hands be? Not the Americans, not the Japanese, not the Russians and not the British, Swiss, Germans or French. Or are we defining "modern" as "since the last known flawed design"?

          Nuclear power might be the answer and the risk appropriate but it flys against all the evidence to call it safe.

          1. MacroRodent

            Re: Supply commitments?

            There have really been just two disasters with catastrophic effects, Chernobyl and Fukushima, both in quite old plants. Oh, and one rather inconsequential one, Three mile island, which killed nobody. New plants really are inherently safer, a a response to concerns raised by the problems. At least in Chernobyl the safety culture seems to have been questionable. Experimenting on a live reactor so that safety systems are intentionally disabled?! At least nobody will try a that again. Fukushima was the victim of a natural disaster, but the plant was not sufficiently prepared for the double whammy of an earthquake and tsunami, in a part of the world where such are known to occur. Maybe we just should not put nuclear power plants in earthquake-prone regions.

            1. cyberdemon Silver badge
              Devil

              Re: Supply commitments?

              > There have really been just two disasters with catastrophic effects, Chernobyl and Fukushima

              Chernobyl was a catastrophe. Fukushima was a catastrophe in terms of the PR it caused (e.g. Frau Merkel's knee-jerk) but in every other sense I think it was a triumph for nuclear safety.

              Like you say it was an old design and was not built to withstand a double fault (modern nuclear plants & their safety systems are built to "SIL 4", which requires being able to cope with and immediately diagnose two simultaneous independent faults - more onerous than you might imagine..)

              Fukushima was smashed by a "natural" tsunami that killed 10,000s, and made 100,000s homeless. In spite of this the nuclear plant itself has killed nobody. Not one of the "Fukushima 50" who went in to stabilise the plant expecting to die, has died yet. But we have almost forgotten about the tsunami.

              Yet people are killed in ordinary "industrial accidents" every day, especially in the "third world", although three were killed (IN BRITAIN!!) demolishing an old coal plant down the road from me at Didcot a few months ago.

              When people tell me that Chernobyl or even Fukushima were the worst industrial disasters mankind has known, I like to remind them of Bhopal.

              But I suppose that happened in a part of the world we don't care about. :@

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Supply commitments?

                "Fukushima was a catastrophe in terms of the PR it caused (e.g. Frau Merkel's knee-jerk) but in every other sense I think it was a triumph for nuclear safety."

                Rubbish. The tsunami closed Fukushima down, but it should either already have had additional protective measures to mitigate known risks (additional to those originally incorporated into the design), or have already been closed down *because* of the additional known risks. It was a *disaster* in the sense that it showed nuclear regulation in Japan wasn't working - the additional risks had been simply ignored, as had TEPCO's unsatisfactory operational practices.

                TEPCO had already had their wrists slapped by the (ineffective) regulator on a number of occasions, for things including neglecting the scheduled maintenance of the diesel powered backup generators.

                It was already known that Fukushima was at excessive risk of sea water overtopping the sea defences (the walls were unrealistically low), and it was also known that when that happened, the station would likely be uncontrollable (no incoming electricity, backup generators inoperable due to sea water - the backup generators were at low level, etc).

                There's more but ICBA. A much longer writeup can be found at

                http://carnegieendowment.org/files/fukushima.pdf - extract below.

                These things could have been properly addressed. To do so would have cost money, but not lives. Therefore they weren't properly addressed. See any problem with that?

                "At the time of the accident, critical safety systems in nuclear power plants in some countries, especially in European states, were—as a matter of course— much better protected than in Japan. Following a flooding incident at Blayais Nuclear Power Plant in France in 1999, European countries significantly enhanced their plants’ defenses against extreme external events. Japanese operators were aware of this experience, and TEPCO could and should have upgraded Fukushima Daiichi.

                Steps that could have prevented a major accident in the event that the plant was inundated by a massive tsunami, such as the one that struck the plant in March 2011, include:

                • Protecting emergency power supplies, including diesel generators and batteries, by moving them to higher ground or by placing them in watertight bunkers;

                • Establishing watertight connections between emergency power supplies and key safety systems; and

                • Enhancing the protection of seawater pumps (which were used to transfer heat from the plant to the ocean and to cool diesel generators) and/or constructing a backup means to dissipate heat.

                Though there is no single reason for TEPCO and NISA’s failure to follow international best practices and standards, a number of potential underlying causes can be identified. NISA lacked independence from both the government agencies responsible for promoting nuclear power and also from industry.

                In the Japanese nuclear industry, there has been a focus on seismic safety to the exclusion of other possible risks. Bureaucratic and professional stovepiping made nuclear officials unwilling to take advice from experts outside of the field. Those nuclear professionals also may have failed to effectively utilize local knowledge. And, perhaps most importantly, many believed that a severe accident was simply impossible.

                In the final analysis, the Fukushima accident does not reveal a previously unknown fatal flaw associated with nuclear power. Rather, it underscores the importance of periodically reevaluating plant safety in light of dynamic external threats and of evolving best practices, as well as the need for an effective regulator to oversee this process."

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Supply commitments?

                Your argument that the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima are not all that serious is disingenuous for an obvious reason. Unlike explosions or extremely poisonous chemicals, radiation kills slowly (unless it is extremely high), which means that there is usually sufficient time to evacuate the population near an accident site. There are few direct health casualties precisely because of the evacuation and precautions to limit exposure. It is perverse to then claim that the problem is exaggerated because so few people die!

                That does not mean there are no casualties of a different sort: large areas are rendered uninhabitable for very long periods of time and there are substantial financial and personal losses, especially if the site is near high population densities, or near food production areas.

                1. Alan Brown Silver badge

                  Re: Supply commitments?

                  "Unlike explosions or extremely poisonous chemicals, radiation kills slowly (unless it is extremely high), "

                  With that statement you prove you know nothing about how radiation exposure works.

                  Cornwall, the Dales and Helsinki aren't dead zobes.

                  Nor have aircrew been dying in numbers greater than the general population. Yet millions of them have been exposed to far higher levels than fukushima and most of the chernbyl exclusion zone for more than 50 years.

                  (It's also witth noting thathat cancer rate in nagasaki and hiroshima since 1947 are a whole 0.2% higher than would be "normal".)

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Supply commitments?

                    ""Unlike explosions or extremely poisonous chemicals, radiation kills slowly (unless it is extremely high), "

                    With that statement you prove you know nothing about how radiation exposure works."

                    No, actually that statement is entirely true. The likelihood of adverse health effects from radiation depends very much on cumulative exposure to radiation, i.e. total radiation exposure over time, and when it does occur, death occurs much later than the actual exposure. The fact that health authorities set the threshold for acceptable exposure lower than perhaps they need to is different matter, but perhaps not inconsistent with safety margins for other situations (we don't build bridges with small safety margins either). And there is a reason why they are conservative: we are still learning what the effects are. For example: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/11/11greenwire-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-cast-long-shadows-over-99849.html?pagewanted=all

            2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

              Re: Supply commitments?

              >Maybe we just should not put nuclear power plants in earthquake-prone regions.

              Like California ?

        2. Van

          Re: Supply commitments?

          Funny how these 'competent hands' can not for the life of them provide an accurate/honest cost for de-commissioning a nuclear site (the last ones increased 20- fold) or an accurate time-scale, again, obscenely longer than predicated.

          All we know is that our Grandchildren will likely be heavily taxed to pay for it. These are the real reasons for Nuclear hesitancy, we simply don't have the money to put aside. Also, if there should be a population implosion, not only will the extra energy not be needed, there wont be enough people left to tax. Last one out hit the 'off' button, then hope for the best.

        3. nijam Silver badge

          Re: Supply commitments?

          > Even a worst-case accident in a solar power plant will not leave the surrounding are contaminated for centuries.

          Nor will a nuclear plant accident, as we have now seen. Years, in bad cases, but centuries? That would be exaggerating to to point of propaganda.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Supply commitments?

        This sorry tale is a sorry tale of a power station reducing output due to an accident. Nuclear power stations' large capacity means that there is a major challenge when they have an accident. And if the accident is bad, well, that's a bit worse than everybody having to stay clear for half an hour.

    2. FlashJackFromGundagai

      Re: Supply commitments?

      This is very true, and I hate to say the uncomfortable truth, but Solar is just a "Flash in the Pan"... it is never going to deliver the base load power the cities such as LA need 100% of the time, and not when the Sun happens to be shining. Further if we wanted a 1000 MW Solar Power station now, it would take up 17 sq miles [http://www.nuscalepower.com/why-smr/environmental-footprint]. Wind farms are worse. The experience of Germany in closing their nuclear reactors and attempting to replace them with renewables, has meant Germany has turned to Cola fired power stations to take up the slack! The uncomfortable truth for the Modern day greenies, is Nuclear is the only energy technology that can deliver now! [PS.. I am not in anyway associated with the Nuclear Power Industry...]

      1. hmv

        Re: Supply commitments?

        Cola fired? I know it's just a typo, but it's a good one :)

        1. Warm Braw

          Re: Supply commitments?

          >Cola fired?

          It's the surreal thing.

          1. Steve Aubrey

            Re: Supply commitments?

            They would get a Jolt out of that!

          2. Shovel

            Re: Supply commitments?

            You've been waiting your whole life

        2. Steve K
          Coat

          Re: Supply commitments?

          Maybe they are going back to fizzion power?

        3. nijam Silver badge

          Re: Supply commitments?

          > Cola fired? I know it's just a typo, but it's a good one :)

          Yes, the gas pressure in those bottles is enormous.

        4. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Supply commitments?

        There are plenty of very expensive failures in the nuclear industry, even without counting the unmitigated disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima. For example, California rate payers are being stuck with over $10 Billion just for decommissioning the San Onofre nuclear plant. The nuclear industry cannot deliver 100% of the power NOW either, it would take them many, many years as well to build sufficient capacity.

        Solar power does not need to provide 100% of base load power for LA (or California) for it to be a very successful generation technology, there will be a mix of different types of technologies, and increasingly these can be renewable technologies. Solar power may be intermittent, but it is actually highly predictable, especially in aggregate over a large geographic area . The power generated by a particular panel may be very unpredictable because of clouds or an airplane shadow passing over, but aggregated over a large area we can predict several hours in advance the power that will be generated, allowing operators to schedule other sources to come online to fill in the gap. Grid improvements such as East-West HVDC links can be used to reduce storage requirements because peak solar generation in the east earlier in the day can be sent west where solar power is lower, and later in the day peak generation in the west can augment declining solar generation in the east. But ultimately, we probably will need significant storage capacity to take full advantage of solar, and that is not cheap, so it's unlikely to provide 100% of the power.

        There is no silver bullet to solve the problem all by itself, not nuclear, not solar, not wind, not coal, not gas, not hydro. The track record for solar, while not without setbacks, is on the whole quite good. But the criteria for success should not be that it should provide 100% of the power needed.

  7. sandman

    Correction

    "At the time, the plant's owner BrightSource claimed the facility had already hit 180 per cent of capacity".

  8. kryptonaut
    Flame

    It was the ants

    They got into the computer room and took their revenge for millions of schoolboy magnifying-glass 'experiments'.

    Local hospitals should watch out for swarms of 7-legged spiders infiltrating their operating theatres.

  9. Known Hero
    Terminator

    Birth of AI

    They obviously have a AI with dedicated isolated power supply only on solar and battery for safety. It saw the world around itself and is desperately trying to commit suicide.

  10. BoldMan

    Surely it should be Icarus rather than Archimedes?

    1. Youngdog

      @Boldman

      Behold - the Archimedes Death Ray!

      http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_ArchimedesResult.html

    2. Charles 9

      No, Archimedes as the myth goes (the MythBusters tried this out...TWICE). Supposedly, he designed a solar anti-ship weapon using an array of mirror similar to what is used today in solar thermal plants. Thing is, it's rather cumbersome to fit on a mobile frame, which you would need to make it an anti-ship sun-tracking weapon.

      1. Tom 7

        Mythbusters are plonkers. Archimedes was on smart bugger and didnt just fuck up for laughs. Its not hard to get a bunch of men to direct and focus mirrors on to a boat - they just need to bring the reflections in one at a time, or if there was a frame used the man who designed the antikithera mechanism could easily get a simple frame to work.

        1. Charles 9

          But we're talking triremes. Those are still some pretty big things, and the amount of sun you'd need to concentrate on them to get them seriously alight (especially if they're MOVING in three dimensions--think waves) would take a serious level of coordination: a level they might not have available. Plus one has to calculate the current angle of the sun in the sky and figure out how to reflect everything just so. Plus the angle could be wrong to allow for a good reflection (say the sun's coming from the north and the fleet's to the south, in which case you want to refract, not reflect). Or it could be raining: a double-whammy for such a plan. And what about the state of mirror art in Archimedes' day? Can you get enough reflectivity? Finally, something that big would essentially become a big fat target for invading forces: they would likely find a way to neutralize it first before engaging in force. The Greeks had plenty of other tech at their disposal which would be both more familiar and more reliable.

          1. Frumious Bandersnatch

            "Plus one has to calculate the current angle of the sun [etc.]"

            Why? Every schoolboy can figure out how to steer the sun's reflection in a wristwatch so as to dazzle somebody. No calculations required.

            All Archimedes' rig would need (I'm speculating) would be a smaller targeting mirror with a shorter focal length attached to the main mirror, along with a separate targeting reticule (I think it's called). Then targeting would just involve moving the rig until you have a line of sight from behind the targeting mirror, through the reticule (which would be lit up) to the ship beyond.

            The real problem, as you mention, is the quality of the mirrors and their fixed focal length. You would need a fairly large number of these to set fire to a sail.

            1. Stoneshop
              Boffin

              Mirrors

              All Archimedes' rig would need (I'm speculating) would be a smaller targeting mirror with a shorter focal length attached to the main mirror,

              No need to have each individual mirror concave shaped, because at a distance of 100m or more they would be as good as flat anyway. And there's a trick to aiming a shield/mirror by having a hole in it and a small mirror on the back, concentric with the hole. You hold the mirror between you and the target so that you see the target through the hole, and a bright spot from the sun through the hole on the ground, reflected towards you by the mirror on the back. Lining up that reflection with the hole itself will have the sun reflected right on the target. And you're behind the shield/mirror the entire time.

            2. Cynic_999

              You could use the same method as is used for signalling with a mirror. Hold the bottom left corner of the mirror a few inches in front of your eye. Hold your thumb out in front of the mirror. Move your thumb so that the bottom left of the target area lies in a line between the bottom left corner of the mirror and the top of your thumb. Now swivel the mirror so that the bottom left corner of the bright rectangle of reflected sunlight is also hitting the top of your thumb. The mirror is now accurately reflecting sunlight onto the target. Slightly better is to have a small hole in the mirror to sight through, a thin black cross on the mirror centred on the hole, and then align the dark cross-hair in the reflected light with your thumb (or a sight stick). It is very accurate and does not require you to see the beam of your mirror on the target (which becomes difficult if the target is dark, far away or there are lots of other mirrors also illuminating the target). Your mirror however will be the only one illuminating your thumb so is easy to adjust.

              From the article cited, 100 mirrors of 1ft X 1ft will ignite the ship. Maybe use 2ft x 2ft mirrors to allow for a greater degree of mis-aiming, though if the mirrors are held on an arm strap like a shield, and the arm supported by a crutch, the mirror should be able to be kept pretty steady.

              I have no idea of the mirror technology available in those days, but I should think polished copper or brass would reflect pretty well, especially in the long IR wavelength that is the only part of the spectrum you would be interested in.

              1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

                IIRC this has been done - NOT by mythbusters but by archeologists. In a Greek harbour. With just a couple of guys wielding polished metal plates and a model, but it would probably scale well enough. I know I have seen this on TV ages ago, but I can't remember on which programme or how it was called, so no luck searching for it so far.

                1. Charles 9

                  I don't know about the hundreds of men with polished shields. I was thinking a single mechanism mounted atop a tower.

            3. dajames

              All Archimedes' rig would need (I'm speculating) would be a smaller targeting mirror...

              "speculating". Very good. I see what you did there.

            4. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Heliograph mirrors have built in targetting bits - a hole in the middle and gratitude etched on the front.

              You can hit a target several miles away with one. Add a frame and it's easy to keep a large one sufficiently targeted on a flammable target (sails) for long enough that a bunch of them will set it on fire but even easier to simply dazzle the crew and make them easy targets for other defenders.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Very grateful

                "gratitude etched on the front."

                Neat. Lots of people would have been content with a graticule. Douglas Adams might prefer gratitude.

  11. DonaldDuck
    Happy

    Smoke and...

    All smoke and mirrors surely

  12. PNGuinn
    Flame

    "The facility has 350,000 mirrors under computer control"

    And internet connected? (Just a guess, folks ... )

    What could possibly go wrong?

  13. Sceptic Tank Silver badge

    And the "carbon footprint" for producing all those mirrors, concrete for the tower (I'm guessing), miles, and miles of copper cable is what?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Carbon footprint

      The footprint of the facility will be less than or equal to that of an equivalent output coal or gas power station, at a rough guess.

      There will always need to be capital costs, economically and environmentally, when setting up a power plant. But minimising the environmental *running* costs is the aim of these facilities.

      That said, if it's mismanaged into the ground because of stupidity then it is a massive waste.

      I still think nuclear (uranium and thorium) are vital.

      For some interesting and very, very sensible reading, see

      https://www.withouthotair.com/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Carbon footprint

        "For some interesting and very, very sensible reading, see

        https://www.withouthotair.com/"

        Indeed. RIP Professor Sir David Mackay. And thanks to El Reg for the tribute:

        http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/15/sir_david_mackay_obituary/

        Some readers may not be aware of his final ever interview on being presented with the Breakthrough Paradigm award a few weeks ago:

        "I [Mark Lynas] had the honour of recording David MacKay’s last interview, on 3 April 2016. The idea was to present him with the Breakthrough Paradigm award because due to his illness he was unlikely to be able to travel to the awards ceremony in June 2016. However, we talked about a lot of different things, and together with David’s wife Ramesh I wanted this video and tribute to appear beforehand in full and unedited. David obviously knew he didn’t have long, and was consequently more forthright than he had perhaps been in previous interviews. Please do not quote him out of context or sensationalise what he said."

        http://www.marklynas.org/2016/04/david-mackay-last-interview-tribute/

        In other energy-related news, today is the day the UK was due to announce the results of its first round of the competition for Small Modular Reactors for nuclear electricity. Not seen the news yet... maybe it's late.

    2. 100113.1537

      Gas-powered solar...

      Actually, the Ivanpah plant uses gas to warm the water in the boilers so that when the sun shines, it can get to boiling point quickly. I don't know how much this is accounted for in the 'solar output' calculation, but as a carbon footprint issue, this is not really what it claims to be.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Gas-powered solar...

        Most large-scale solar-thermal plants use a salt core which retains heat even when the heat source isn't there (meaning it can still generate electricity at night, when you need the lights).

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Gas-powered solar...

          Most large scale solar plants with a salt core use even more gas than Ivanpah does in order to keep the salt molten overnight.

          These plants are not what they're cracked up to be.

      2. Diogenes

        Re: Gas-powered solar...

        According to the Press Enterprise in Riverside, Calif. , Ivanpah emits enough CO2 that it will “be required to participate in the state’s cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions.”

        In its first year, Ivanpah emitted 46,000 metric tons of CO2. That’s about as much as a Frito Lay plant in Bakersfield emits.

  14. WibbleMe

    Ceramic tiles anyone?

    1. Tom 7

      Ceramic tiles?

      You gonna turn it into a swanky fast food kitchen?

  15. John 110
    Unhappy

    "The yellow face, it burns us, precious!"

  16. James O'Shea

    sigh...

    It's very little to do with Google, and quite a lot to do with PG&E. Pacific Gas and Electric has been playing with solar steam systems since at least 1981 or 2; there was a write-up about it in IEEE Spectrum around that time. I can't remember the exact date. I do know that at the time I was in deepest Indiana and would have quite liked a field trip to sunny (and warm) south California. It took 'em a decade or so (1990+) to get a 'production' version running. In any case, PG&E has been playing with this stuff for over 30 years, well before there was a World Wide Web, much less a Google to search it. PG&E is unusually incompetent even for an American electric utility. No, it's not true that Scott Adams worked at PG&E while creating Dilbert; he was at Pacific Bell. He did, however, know people at PG&E. it should be noted that others are running similar sites without managing to set themselves on fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Solar_Project

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

    The Wiki article on Ivanpah includes the following:

    "The largest investor in the project is NRG Energy, a generating company based in Princeton, N.J., that has put in $300 million.[10] The project has also received an investment of $168 million from Google,[28] but in November 2011, Google announced that they would no longer invest in CSP due to the rapid price decline of photovoltaic systems, and stopped its research on the project"

    so the project is no longer 'Google-backed' and hasn't been for five years. Y'all can't blame Google for this one, they walked away years ago.

    And, for those concerned about the carbon footprint, the site uses natural gas to get started every morning. Quite a lot of natural gas, according to Wiki.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Failing company's premises burn down mysteriously

    That has never happened before.

    When they interviewed the owner was he carrying a suitcase with cash sticking out of the seems?

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My sympathies to the firefighters

    Climbing 30 stories wearing fire-kit, as they were required to do, was something they could have done without.

  19. computinghomer

    Ah but the real purpose of the facility is as a weapon for zapping satellites. At the touch of a button the mirrors can put that beam into the path of an oncoming satellite.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Ah but the real purpose of the facility is as a weapon for zapping satellites."

      Or incoming asteroids? There should be scope for a Bruce Willis movie in there.

    2. MK_E

      Or, going back to Archimedes, charging up the satellite-mounted laser.

      1. Dave 32
        WTF?

        Archimedes' Laser

        > Or, going back to Archimedes, charging up the satellite-mounted laser.

        Archimedes had a laser? And a satellite? Do please tell us more! ;-)

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: Archimedes' Laser

          "Archimedes had a laser? And a satellite? Do please tell us more! ;-)"

          Well, he launched his satellite by using a very, very long lever....

    3. Alan Brown Silver badge

      You might joke but this might be a more viable application (deorbiting space junk) than generating electricity.

  20. Hollerithevo
    Pint

    Is it just me?

    I think getting very, very cheap power by using mirrors to use the sun to heat water for steam is great. So few things to break down, steam is a clean and well-known technology with inexpensive parts. I'd love to have a little sun-steam generator (if only there were enough sunshine here). I don't think this can replace other forms of power, but I still think it is neat.

    Cup half full...

    1. JeffyPoooh
      Pint

      Re: Is it just me?

      Hollerithevo "...very, very cheap power..."

      "...cheap..."? Did you notice the $2.2B cost?

      Only 118.4 MW average output (nameplate 345 MW, but not 24/7).

      Only 140,000 homes at an average load just 0.845 kw.

      Assume 10% ROI. $220M per year. 140K homes. $1600/year each, just ROI.

      That's over US$0.20 per kWh >>just to service the capital<<.

      Not including any other cost item. Transmission. Maintenance. Staffing

      It'll be $0.45 at the meter. Or subsidized by others.

      That's certainly not 'very very cheap' power. Why would you think that?

      It's way more than I pay. It's very expensive power.

      How are we going to save the planet when all the most environmentally-minded people are perfectly innumerate? This is a much more serious issue than the loony deniers.

      Excuse the rant. It's not you specifically; it's just that you provided a perfect example.

      1. nijam Silver badge

        Re: Is it just me?

        > How are we going to save the planet when all the most environmentally-minded people are perfectly innumerate?

        Perhaps innumeracy is the reason they're environmentally-minded.

        There's only one number you need to know if you want to deal with environmental issues (although it keeps changing, thereby confusing the innumerate). Earlier today it was a little over 7.4 billion according to http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

        1. JeffyPoooh
          Pint

          Re: Is it just me?

          nijam: "...7.4 billion..."

          We've already figured out that overpopulation is due to lack of 'health and wealth' (Ref. Hans Rosling, Gapminder). Predictions state that we'll peak at less than 10 billion.

          In other words, it's already a solved problem.

          Problem is - the lag time in the curve is about a lifetime.

          1. Charles 9

            Re: Is it just me?

            2:1 the prediction goes awry because the biggest impetus for population has a vicious cycle attached to it. More people diffuses the wealth, making people poorer, spurring them to have more kids so they have a better chance of someone to care for their twilight years and so on...

      2. Hollerithevo

        Re: Is it just me?

        I read your figures with interest. How do these costs stack up against traditional fossil fuels and also nuclear? What about in 20 years time? 50 years? Will the costs for a bloody big mirror etc remain as high as they are today? And why have Google done this? Are they just starry-eyed tree-huggers or are they anticipating that costs of solar will keep going down or that, eventually, it will be the better option?

    2. Dave 32
      Flame

      Re: Is it just me?

      > I'd love to have a little sun-steam generator (if only there were enough sunshine here).

      Do a Google search on "solar stirling engine". They're somewhat common, although the commercial versions are not necessarily cheap; however, I have seen some Do-It-Yourself plans for them.

      Dave

      P.S. Then, you, too, can set fire to things with a misaligned mirror!

    3. 100113.1537

      Re: Is it just me?

      Neat - if you not a bird. The US Fish and Wildlife service investigated this plant and there were hundreds of bird carcasses collected from under the mirrors, including one Peregrine falcon. Most of them are not killed outright, but it doesn't take much scorching of flight feathers to bring down a bird, and then it is easy pickings for the ground-based predators.

      Turns out all solar farms are a problem for birds; Water birds regularly mistake the 'normal' solar collection panels as ponds, crash on landing and can't take off again. Nice to know if you are a coyote or a fox....

      1. Diogenes

        Re: Is it just me?

        Neat - if you not a bird. The US Fish and Wildlife service investigated this plant and there were hundreds of bird carcasses collected from under the mirrors, including one Peregrine falcon.

        IIRC they spent somewhere north of $2m on building a fence to keep some tortoises out.

  21. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    $2.2 billion, anyone else notice that?

    Just 118 MW average output. Kinda low for $2.2B. Spend the same sort of money on a hydro project and one would get about 10x the power.

    Note: Borders don't matter to CO2. Projects should be done where most cost-effective, on a CO2 per $ basis.

    This $2.2B facility powers only 140,000 homes (just 845 watts average load each). Extrapolating $2.2B for 140,000 homes to the entire world (7.2B, 2B+ homes) would require a sizeable fraction of 'All the wealth on Earth'. Poor ROI. Airhead EnvironMentalists should learn about 'sustainability', including not blowing all the available money on Earth at such a rate that they'll never get the whole job done.

    These sorts of money-burning projects are effectively 'environmental war crimes'. The same money could have been put to much more effective use. The goal shouldn't be to spend all the available money as quickly as possible.

    The 'climate deniers' got nothing on the innumerate ecoMentals in terms of their damage to the planet. Their idiotic lack of prioritization and fiscal mismanagement is now the single greatest threat. Their approach isn't paying the slightest attention to cost effectiveness or CO2 per dollar efficiency, so it'll ultimately cost too much and take too long. As if it didn't matter in the slightest..

    Representatives of the planet-killing 'Airhead EnvironMentalists Society' may now self-identify with the downvote button.

    1. Killing Time

      Re: $2.2 billion, anyone else notice that?

      In complete agreement with Jeffypoooh on this.

      Hopefully the UK has dodged a bullet on an equally harebrained scheme in the delays and rethink regarding the proposed tidal barrage schemes, starting in Swansea Bay and potentially repeated at various locations around the UK. Equally ludicrous cost, poor generation return and subsequently appalling ROI.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: $2.2 billion, anyone else notice that?

        KT "...tidal..."

        The Bay of Fundy (between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, Canada) has the highest tides in the world. They've been working on tidal power schemes for at least 40 years, and any significant project seems to be at least another 20 years away. I guess there's no rush.

  22. Anonymous IV

    "Solar electricity facility sets itself on fire"

    And they say that Americans don't understand irony...!

    1. Stoneshop
      Headmaster

      And they say that Americans don't understand irony...!

      Well, the mirrors are more like silvery.

  23. Anonymous John

    "Misaligned mirrors"

    Weren't they where the Google car said they were?

  24. William Higinbotham

    Thank You

    To all that entered good critique on issue. Yes it is an expensive endeavor but we learn from our failures as well. We will have to see what will become of this interesting power station. My thought is that the mirrors could be replaced with solar panels and track the sun or is the mount setting only good for reflection angle?

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Thank You

      "Yes it is an expensive endeavor but we learn from our failures as well."

      Not always. The thing about failure is that, sometimes, you don't survive them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Coat

        Re: Thank You

        yes, but someone else does

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Thank You

      Hilliam Wiginbotham...

      "...the mirrors could be replaced with solar panels..."

      You make it sound easy, when it's massively expensive.

      "...and track the sun, or is the mount setting only good for reflection angle?"

      You sound concerned, when that would almost certainly be the trivial bit.

  25. Dagg Silver badge
    Joke

    Where were the Thunderbirds when you need them...

    Must have had problems with moms cooking!

  26. Alan Brown Silver badge

    Not the first fire there

    One of Ivanpah's earlier towers burned down too.

    It appears that apart from the high gas use (Google for it. Ivanpah uses a large amount of gas quite inefficiently to keep the thing warm at night but this isn't counted in its official efficiency stats - which only count gas used during generating hours), these plants need to have an accounting model allowing for occasional tower replacement.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The damage done doesn't look to bad, some new isolation and a bunch of cables

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon