Why California Built The World's Largest Solar Farm 

There was nothing in this report to suggest in any way that CA solar investments have been a failure. Hence the title is knowingly deceptive. On one particular point; "there is some local criticism" that solar farms may reduce the value of nearby residents' property values. Excuse me, but what power generating facility would NOT do that? In fact, solar farms would have likely the least adverse affect on local property values of any power-generating model. This report is clearly designed to try to reach a disingenuous conclusion, and does a lousy job of it.

This panel can put out close to 100 watts ru-vid.comUgkxOqI2yqX0XVrhR2BMJciTWrHJpG8FhJyg when positioned in the appropriate southernly direction, tilted to the optimal angle for your latitude/date, and connected to a higher capacity device than a 500. The built in kickstand angle is a fixed at 50 degrees. Up to 20% more power can be output by selecting the actual date and latitude optimal angle.The 500 will only input 3.5A maximum at 18 volts for 63 watts. Some of the excess power from the panel can be fed into a USB battery bank, charged directly from the panel while also charging a 500. This will allow you to harvest as much as 63 + 15 = 78 watts.If this panel is used to charge a larger device, such as the power station, then its full output potential can be realized.

Can somebody finally explain to me why this was a failure?

The most expensive part of green energy is storage batteries. Just to keep one 1500 square foot home under power 24/7 in mid summer requires a battery worth $20,000. The inverters and solar panels are the cheap part. Then keep in mind that they probably need to be replaced in 20 years. In most places, like California the “grid tied” solar incentives have greatly diminished with too restrictive conditions to be worth doing when you run all the numbers especially long term.

WHERE IS THE FAILURE! This facility works as designed and does what it's supposed to do. How is this a failure? It touched briefly on the potential disadvantages of large solar plants, neither of which affect this facility... I can only assume that the title was changed to game the algorithm...

$1.4 billion costs to build, divided by 160,000 homes is less than $9,000 per household. My 7.2 kwatt system with 18 solar panels costs me about $26,000 before 26% tax break. The costs per house is pretty good. I like the idea of putting solar panels above the California aquaduct, which would reduce water loss to evaporation and also would generate electricity and not take up more land.

Didn't talk about the huge carbon footprint and ecological effects of mining needed in order to build solar panels

Solar alone is not the answer. Hydro alone is not the answer. Wind alone is not the answer. Nuclear alone is not the answer. It's all working together plus other ways ( burn trash like other countries ) instead of bearing it in landfills. Options versatility the answer

Honestly the entire east and west electrical grid needs a major upgrade.

I've driven by this and seen it in person. Quite a sight to see! It looks like a synthetic ocean glimmering in the sunlight.

They keep building more solar farms and more solar farms and the lights still go out at night.....can't figure it out.

One issue that isn't discussed, that is the conversion of DC voltage, created by the solar panels and also the batteries, to AC power. Conversion is done with devices called "Inverters". Power is actually lost thru this process. I recall seeing a video where it shows how high temperatures will negatively affect the Panels.

When it's cloudy or dark when most power is needed you get nothing.

Large expanses of city could have solar on the roofs without consuming anymore land. Also less transmission losses

A energy grid run entirely on solar power is one of the most comical plans I ever come across.

You have a strange understanding of "Failure", looks like a successful venture to me

Yes, as the single and total producer of electric power for California's electrical needs, this one solar farm is not meeting that goal. It was never intended to do so. California has always relied upon hydropower to supply a large part of the electrical generation required for this state. Unfortunately, the state is in the 20th (or more) year of the worst drought in 2,000 years reducing the production of this form of generation. Also, as no federal permanent storage site for radioactive waste material has been developed, CA has begun to eliminate nuclear-powered electrical energy generation here. Carbon-fueled electrical generation has also been discouraged if not eliminated to slow the creation of greenhouse gasses. Fortunately for California, many state-run institutions, private institutions, private businesses, and homeowners have installed solar power arrays to meet much if not all of their electrical needs. The growth in solar-powered electrical generation is constantly increasing throughout California. This $1.5 billion solar array is a large step in that direction, but not the only or final step.

I accidentally backfed a solar panel with battery power, and to my surprise, sunlight came out of the panel.

NOT ONCE DOES HE MENTION FAILURE IN THE VIDEO

A city in Michigan invested tens of millions to replace all their current (working) incandescent traffic lights with leds. The energy savings as well as the longevity of the bulb looked good on paper. All started well until the first Winter hit and all of the traffic lights were iced and snowed-over resulting in the inability to read the traffic lights. It turns out the lower-energy consumption of leds also meant less heat was dissipated. Unfortunately, the incandescent heat generated enough heat to keep the lights from being frozen over. Rather than to admit their mistake and revert- the city commissioned a task force and corrective action board that took half a year to come up with a heat pack that would be installed on the back of every single led traffic signal. Unfortunately, the heat packs used more energy than the incandescent bulbs and would have to be replaced as often as the incandescent bulbs. The maintenance crew tasked with traffic light management was never reduced. The price tag of the project was nearly 350% over-budget. Needless to say 10 years later all of those hodgepodged traffic lights along with the mayor and city council were all replaced.

It is very hard for solar farms to be "failures." It doesn't sound like this is an exception. Solar panels generate predictable volumes of energy. In some cases there are problems with transmission. Doesn't sound like this is the case here. Solar energy is roughly 1/5 the cost of energy generated by Natural Gas and 1/7 the cost of coal generation. Of course us clean. There are no emissions -- no fires, extreme wind events, etc. So this is a seriously misleading video.

Water tide power seems undeveloped in California not like they don't have unpopulated coastline. Also wind power has many crazy designs available that have internal blades and more practical in lower density

I’m confused, the farm powers 160k homes but also generates 17% of the states energy?

I don’t see what’s a failure here, these solar farms are a great success story and we need as many as we can to stop burning fossil fuel.

Sure can tell you why “California’s … is a failure.” It’s because the content provider needed a TEASER to get all of us to view it”.

This article doesn't indicate how much electricity California purchases from generating facilities in other states. Will California, in the future, only purchase renewable sourced electricity?

That's 8 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

Seems to me that it's doing exactly what it's supposed to. The shortfalls are in grid infrastructure and energy storage (and more esoterically, energy usage and efficiency, none of which a solar farm can provide. Is the lack of on-demand production a drawback of solar? Sure. But I'll take that over shortened lifespans from air pollution, the far greater mining requirements of fossil fuels vs battery and solar cell materials, and numerous other drawbacks of fossil fuels.

Solar farms are only part of the energy supply mix. The state will need to add massive amounts of storage facilities to meet the 24/7 electric energy needs of the state. Do not forget millions of kw of solar and wind will be needed just to supply the energy storage facilities.

Try looking at a graph of fixed panel installation output sometime! If you can read and understand a standard graph the plot will surprise you!

Such a large investment and yet the panels don't appear to tilt and track the sun.

It would be interesting to hear of the periodic maintenance requirements of all those panels., e.g., surface cleaning, deterioration from the weather, monitoring and replacement of bad panels etc.

Looks like a success to me.

I'm reading the comments and a lot of people are saying that solar Farms are not a failure. I have a question for them. California relies on solar energy not on fossil fuels. So why are we having so many blackouts in many parts of California?? It seems solar energy is not sufficient

Lets me further know how important it is to get behind new nuclear.

I don’t know why they do not cover all roads or at least highways with solar panels? Yes I know cost and maintenance but less heat absorption on to the roads. Also all roof tops.

So in the end the solar farm was a great success. I hate it when RU-vid channels bait you with misleading titles.

So electricity costs in California are declining relative to the rest of the country...?

I've read various accounts that indicate anywhere from 10 - 20% of the Overall energy production gets lost in transmission on "the grid"

What happens at night??

"residential solar panels are mainly used to turn solar radiation into heat energy" - nonsense. The panels are the same - sunlight into electricity. The difference is scale - commercial solar fields are much larger than a building installation and are designed to feed the grid rather than a particular building. Regarding reliability the big negative for solar is it only works from about 10 to 3 when the sun shines. How reliable is a power source like that? The only reason solar is popular is because the CPUC mandates the percentage of solar for each utility. They have NO choice as to new power sources. That is why my kwhr rate is 3 times what is was in 2000 when San Onofre was running. For this particular project you mention the ownership and that the output is sold to SoCal Edison but then say the project was funded by DOE? So US taxpayers are subsdizing a power project that serves Southern California? Who says traditional forms of electrical energy production have become too expensive or not as effective - we still need those traditional power plants to provide power for about 18 of every 24 hours? And the cost of duplicating electrical energy production facilities will only get worse as California attempts to eliminate gas powered vehicles.

Hot Sunny places in the Southwest should put solar above every parking lot. Shade for your car, Power for the stores.

ok so not a failier at all then ..... lets build more of these please.

This is a silly conclusion. We have always had issues with power supply regardless if it was oil or not. Of course there are disadvantages to using solar. It has fewer disadvantages than other forms of energy. It is very very cheap power and it has met it's objectives. Solar is not the whole grid, just part of it. To say it didn't solve all of our problems is like saying that one stretch of highway fixes all of the other highways.

Nevada and Arizona could change their entire economies by converting their deserts. Could you imagine?

I just bought two 400w American made panels for $600. I think that is pretty inexpensive but I need two more and a couple more batteries which are $$$. The panels will pay for themselves in a year or so

where do they put the batteries ?

Transition to alternate energy should be a seamless transition with retention of functionality of power stations being upgraded kept online as a backup, which should provide a reserve for good reason. Not all conventional fuel requiring machinery is practical to be transitioned so there is not going to be any complete replacement of vehicles or farm equipment or heavy equipment and industrial machinery or aircraft with alternate technology in the foreseeable future. Escalating the transition without understanding feasibility limitations including cost effectiveness is a formula for failure. What is being attempted to be done needs to be a very gradual process and very carefully done with practical and achievable goals, not done as a recklessly escalated and over optimistic agenda, but done with finesse, and slow but sure, since it involves a truly huge engineering challenge. Not the least of things to consider is the price of progress and is there the wealth available to pay for such grand schemes. To what end is it to build a New Eden where everyone would want to live but no one can afford the cost of living there so the luxurious utopia has no residents.

I've noticed that after a highway was built in my area, the weather patterns changed. It always rained on the side between the highway and the mountains, but rarely on the opposite side. Prior to that, it rained on both sides pretty much evenly. It seems like the highway created a barrier to the moisture due to the heat it collects. The collection of heat from the highway and the collection of heat from the panels are very similar. If we are talking save the earth, should we not take into consideration how these new sources contribute to global warming and the changing weather patterns? Should this not be part of the environmental statements before permits are given out?

Wish they would quit wasting money on this and do something that will give us power all day and night

I'm working at the Oberon 1 and Oberon 2 farms , it's on 4300 acres!!

What most people don't realize is that the power generated by solar is not usable. It must be converted into usable power. The next thing that they don't mention is the thermal pollution. If it's so great, why does kalifornia have rolling blackouts and power outages? The numbers just don't add up.

Thanks for not answering the question of why the solar farm is "failing".

One thing I've been wondering for awhile is how much solar energy contributes to global warming. That's right, I said contributes. We all know that dark colors absorb more light than light colors. So how much extra heat does 1 square meter of panel produce compared to light colored dirt? And what is the relationship of that extra heat gathering compared to the effect of lower CO2 emissions? Is it a tiny percentage? Or does it completely negate the effect of lowering CO2 emissions? Do we even know?

That's 8 minutes I'll never get back!

efficiency is mostly lost in the transmission of power. so the solution is not large solar farms in the boonies, it's producing power locally where it's needed. we need to stop thinking inside the grid and start thinking about self sufficiency when we build and stop depending on utilities

Has anyone studied the effect of solar farms and the heat they produce on the weather patterns presently creating droughts.

Can the glass on office buildings be replaced with solar? Cause that would help cities right there.

The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm 3900 acres, $1.4 Billion, 550mw powering 160k homes. Diablo Canyon Power Plant 1000 acres, $14 billion (2020 adjusted) 18,000GW powering 3 million homes.

Thank you Maypower2029- great work . I have seen the same saving over the past few months we have had solar panels on our roof which you helped me install when i was recommended by you on the comment section (43 panels). Last year we had $300 in electricity bills - that's it! Maypower2029 is great!

This is insane: the California governor says that all vehicles in 20 years should be electric. A few days ago here is in sunny California we are getting a message from a local power company asking not to charge electric vehicles over Labor Day because of severe pressure on California‘s power grid. Way back everyone was talking about power being generated from windmills. This one when Kaput too. The thing is that we will depend on carbon fuels for years to come until we start harvesting power from hydrogen and nuclear fusion.

The major issue that all of the large scale projects face is Energy Storage. The million dollar question is how to store large quantities of the energy to cover the period of Low to Non Sun light hours on the system and or severe weather. Yes, I believe that we need to make an effort to do our part in the environmental issues we are having. But, we need to make sure that we are able to keep the lights on and deal with the power demand of today and the future. As a Californian we have been hearing for the last couple of days (Week of September 5th) the need to watch our power draw. We have had high heat (my area 85+ ). SO we know that the people of the state have been suffering rolling brown outs to actual black outs. So, what will be the method of storing the energy that is produced from these production facilities? Will the be some type of battery (Battery will be a whole other issue waste wise) or will a source of stored energy (Water/Compressed airs-gas or a unknown future tech). The biggest question I see is how will we power the state in the evening / early morning hours take place? This will need to be looked at with a fine tooth come think of Texas and the issues they had during winter. Then how do we play the game of power generation for those times? We all know that all power generation comes at some cost to the environment. The biggest question that I see now is what is the impact that the manufacturing of the solar pv panels will have on the environment and the what is the life cycle of the panels and what is being put in place to ensure that when a unit and or solar farm becomes decommissioned what will happen to the equipment and land of the project? Look at the video at the 3:09 the closest Wind Turbine Generators are probably of the 500Kwh - 750Kwh production range. This is an example of what I am talking about for the deconstruction of out of commission units. These are something I know about first hand from working in the Wind Industry for almost 10 years. The industry needs to have more plans for the decommissioning of either non functioning units and or when a field is beyond economic viability for profit. Those of us in the industry have seen massive amounts of early WTG's the litter the landscape dead and non functioning. Now newer projects that I was associated had clauses built into the finance and usage contract that the field would be taken down and the environment would be returned to original condition. We need to make sure that this is the case with these projects as well or we will be left with square kilometers of dead projects.

These black penals heat up the air much more than the sand around that solar field

I Feel.. ... SWAMPY..

Those animations are sick 🔥

Well, there are certainly a lot of issues with Solar. One being that it doesn't work everywhere. California is ideal because of the weather and the sunshine. How about where I live in Pennsylvania? We get shorter sunlight in the winter, snow, rain, hail, all of which affect the reliability of solar. Also, given our weather conditions, the panels can be damaged and must be changed, In my backyard, I would have to chop down a lot of trees to get the sunlight, so a Michael Moore tells us, I would have to destroy the environment to protect it. Then there is the mining issue where the resources to make solar panels come from Africa. The mining damages the environment and is done by if not slave, the almost slave labor. Final assembly is done in China, again is it done with slave labor? And, as we buy things from China, they build up their military and threaten war. And then there is the issue of disposal. Placing spent solar panels in a land fill results in pollutants leaking into the environment. I hope it all comes up roses for California because they certainly need a solution to their energy woes.

My remote control requires 2 AAA batteries. But I bought only 1. Does this mean the costs of my 1 single battery is a failure?

Most people in California live in shanties for insane high prices. Yes, according to Austrian building standards, most houses in California are not suitable for housing and are seen as shanties. Just replace these shanties with CPSH - Climate Protection Superiority Houses to solve all energy problems. The first ever produced CPSH will be the GEMINI next Generation house, standard version with 43 kW photovoltaic and 100 kWh batteries. Will have in California 50,000 to 55,000 kWh yearly yield by minimal own consumption for cooling, heating and DHW. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZkDUKoNgaII.html

I worked on this project from beginning to end. It was awesome to be a part of it. And it was a gravy train for everyone involved. First solar went bankrupt shortly after this job was over (back in business now). We had a monthly safety BBQ where they raffled of TVs, Laptops and thousands of dollars in gift cards every month . It was awesome. But budgets were never considered and the compliance side of this job was probably half the cost. Solar fields destroy cultural resources, wildlife, and natural habitats, not to mention all the diesel burned to clear and grade the project area plus minning all the rare earth metals needed for PV panels. Probably 10x the pollution and 1000x land needed more then a simple nuclear plant with double the output, doesn't really make sense or pan out. But sunshine makes the hippies in California feel good when virtue signaling. Keep destroying this earth in the name of green energy.

This video is why we need the dislike # back.

Does it make or loose money ?

I understand there’s A lot of red tape to build a solar farm in The state of California in Mexico, particularly Baja California. We could lease the land for 99 years.

This presentation forgot to mention the billions of taxpayer dollars that the government spends on subsidies for alternative energy production !

Now do the carbon footprint of building maintaining these facilities vs nuclear ? also those panels cannot be recycled and new ones get purchased from china that uses coal to produce the power to produce the panels plus the shipping

This video has such a deceptive title. This solar farm is largely a success. I'll take the slight disadvantages os solar if it means not burning fossil fuel.

The image at 2:07 is Sedona in Arizona FYI

OK California gets 25% of its electricity from Washington state from his hydroelectric dams and I don’t like to just make a note that Washington State Wheatland nation and renewable energy through it when turbines hydroelectric and solar rays and we sell that to California my second question though is why are the US taxpayers paying for California’s electrical production needs I think California should figure out what it wants if it wants clean energy from hydroelectric or if it wants to irrigate a desert to grow rice Albans since California uses 3,800,000 acre feet of water to irrigate these crops out of the Colorado river which has dramatically affected his ability to generate clean electricity from hydroelectric Californians. Need to ask the government if it would rather export exotic foods to keep illegal immigrants employed or supply electricity to a state so that California residents don’t die in the heat waves California holds itself so high and mighty like it’s the great leader environmental causes when it is actually the Greatest cause of environmental problems in the country that is California’s legacy a state full of hypocrites

California could have built at least 5 nuclear power plants and produce 100 times more energy at less than 2% of the land use by renewables. France is now powering Europe because they built nuclear power than solar and wind energy.

What was the failure?

The solar system is actually a remarkable success........

So if we need 8M solar panels for 160,000 homes then we will need 2 Trillion panels for the entire state,

The solar farm itself wasn't a failure. Misleading title.

I have found the problem, after my investigation and talking with energy heads, it appears they switch the solar farm off during the day and back on again at night. Secondly the other issue was no rain, as we know we need rain for the voltaic solar cells to operate, so during dry periods the panels are switched off 24/7. Sorry can’t wait until 1st April for this gag.

In 2007, less than 1% of South Australia’s electricity came from renewable sources. An army of trolls claimed it was impossible for intermittent renewables to power more than 20% of SA’s grid. South Australia is at the vanguard of the global energy transition, lifting net electricity generation from renewable energy from 1% to 74% in just over 16 years. By 2025/2026, the Australian Energy Market Operator forecasts this could rise to approximately 85%. South Australia’s aspiration is to achieve 100% net renewables by 2027. In 2021, South Australia met 100% of its operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days (49%) (via grid scale battery storage)

I think that Cali making it through this heat wave without any significant blackouts kind of speaks to how unsuccessful this project has been. LOL

Perhaps the solar panel farm could replace the shade balls in the LA Reservoir

We need multiple sources, but rooftop solar is better, localizes and stabilizes the grid no losses and necessity for more transmission lines

This narrator seems to be a cheerleader for solar farms rather than what the title suggests

I worked on this farm. Its in my home town.

If the wind stops blowing at night, where exactly will the power come from?

where was the failure??? you never mentioned that there was a failure except in the very name of the show!

You failed to mention through this entire video that solar cells only produce 12 volts DC. Tell us what the power loss is through an inverter.

Southern California for three more years. The energy department has an energy innovation network I believe that’s what it’s called.

I've been following solar energy and renewables for years. While there's a huge push to move to solar and wind power they don't create on demand power. In my opinion the only way for solar to work well now is to build natural gas peaker plants to pick up the load at night and during poor weather. While it isn't the holy grail of 100% renewable it is one way to have reliable power and maximize renewable use. Even once battery tech comes along to pick up the night load. We'll still need natural gas power plants to pick up the load during severe weather. Unless of course society decides it's okay to have blackouts regularly during winter storms.

The term Failure is sure good clickbait. Utility Solar has pros and cons. Mind Blown.

Anytime you can produce power with no fuel source can not be a failure.

The largest solar farm in the US is Topaz Solar Farms. 9 Million panels. $2.5 Billion cost was fully funded by Warren Buffet, Berkshire Hathaway Renewables. DOE did not fund Desert Sunlight, only gave loan guarantees. Both were First Solar projects. The state is not funding these projects. Both have proven to be profitable for the investors.

Misleading clickbait title. will not be viewing any further content. Unfortunate, because it is an encouraging segment.

It failed because it was a California Government project. Everything they touch turns to $hI+ ! The latest example - the Hi-Speed Rail Project.

They are literally asking people not to charge their electric cars! The fear of rolling blackouts doesn't sound very successful. You still need baseline power production