It was inaugurated with great fanfare as one of the most innovative renewable energy projects in the United States. Ten years later, it has only fascinated passengers on planes flying over the Nevada desert. This is the Crescent Dunes fiasco.
10,347 mirrors in the desert. With a capacity of 110 MW, Crescent Dunes has more than ten thousand mirrors that concentrate sunlight on a 200-meter central tower. It was the second solar thermal power plant with molten salt storage, after the Spanish Gemasolar plant. But it was built on a scale six times larger, with the intention of storing up to 1.1 GWh of energy and providing flexible power to 100,000 people.
However, the ambitious project built between 2011 and 2013 in Tonopah, halfway between Las Vegas and Reno, never lived up to its promises.
The Nevada Desert Solar Project
A multi-million dollar waste. The project was promoted by California-based SolarReserve. Its price tag: around $1 billion, financed by investors such as Warren Buffet and Citigroup, with loans guaranteed by the US government.
Crescent Dunes was built under an agreement to supply NV Energy, the Nevada power company, with 100% of the electricity it produces for 25 years. 500,000 MWh per year, day and night, thanks to the 10 hours of storage that the molten salts would provide. But the electricity never arrived, or at an exorbitant price.
Bankruptcy. In 2019, NV Energy sued SolarReserve for breach of contract and canceled the power purchase agreement. The costs of maintaining the facility and employee salaries eventually made the project unviable after losing its only customer, leading to the plant’s closure.
Crescent Dunes investors withdrew from the project and also sued SolarReserve for mismanagement of capital. Crescent Dunes was declared bankrupt the following year, confirming what had been brewing since its inauguration: the biggest fiasco in the history of renewable energy in the United States. The power station was taken over by the government as part of an expropriation.
Pourquoi les prix négatifs de l’énergie sont de plus en plus fréquents en Europe
Hopes dashed
However, over time it became clear that the project was not working as planned. The performance of the solar panels was well below expectations, and the installation was not capable of producing the energy needed to make the investment profitable. Several factors have been identified as contributing to this failure, ranging from technical problems to design errors to unforeseen environmental conditions.
One of the main criticisms raised by the project promoter concerns the Spanish company involved in supplying the solar panels. According to him, the panels supplied did not meet the promised specifications, leading to a significant drop in the efficiency of the installation.
A Spanish company is singled out.
After abandoning the project, Bill Gould, co-founder of SolarReserve, blamed the Spanish company ACS Cobra, co-owner and engineer of the plant, for the failure, accusing it of having designed a faulty storage tank.
Despite these accusations, SolarReserve has not taken legal action against the Spanish company, a former subsidiary of Banco Santander and the ACS group led by Florentino Perez. The salt tank at Crescent Dunes broke down because it was too big. Large temperature differences lead to greater expansion, which generates higher compressive forces. When the diameter is very large, the probability of failure due to cyclic loading is multiplied.
https://srqbacklot.com/actualite/le-japon-uses-des-robots-specialises-pour-commencer-a-retirer-les-debris-nucleaires-a-la-centrale-de-fukushima/595054/
Design and planning errors
In addition to environmental conditions, errors in the project design were also identified. It appears that preliminary studies on the viability of the project were not sufficiently thorough, leading to an underestimation of the technical challenges. For example, the layout of solar panels and their orientation relative to the sun may not have been optimized to maximize solar energy capture.
Additionally, site maintenance and management issues have also been reported. Regular maintenance of panels and equipment is crucial to ensure their proper functioning, but it appears that these aspects have been neglected, leading to a more rapid degradation of the installation’s performance.
Corporate responsibility
The project promoter also pointed the finger at the Spanish company that supplied the solar panels. According to him, the panels supplied did not meet the expected quality standards and were a key factor in the failure of the project. The panels reportedly had manufacturing defects or lower efficiency than initial specifications, seriously compromising the facility’s ability to produce energy.
However, it is important to note that the responsibility for the failure cannot be placed entirely on a single actor. The complexity of a project of this scale means that many factors, ranging from design to operation to the quality of the equipment, must be taken into account.
The consequences of failure
The failure of this solar project has considerable financial consequences. Investors, who had counted on the success of the project to generate long-term income, now find themselves with significant losses. The facility, which was intended to be a cost-effective source of renewable energy, is now a money pit, and the initial costs are unlikely to be recouped.
Additionally, this failure could impact investor confidence in large-scale solar energy projects. If perceived risks increase, it could become more difficult to raise money for future projects, which could slow the deployment of solar power in other regions.
A setback for the energy transition
Beyond the financial consequences, this failure is also a setback for the energy transition. Solar power is considered one of the leading sources of renewable energy for the future, and failures of this magnitude can damage public perception of the technology. Solar energy skeptics could use this failure to question the viability of large-scale renewable energy.
It is crucial for the solar industry to learn from this failure and put measures in place to avoid similar mistakes in the future. This could include better planning, greater attention to local environmental conditions, and more rigorous quality controls for equipment supplied.
The Nevada desert solar installation fiasco is a stark reminder that even the best-intentioned projects can fail if all aspects are not carefully planned and executed. Although the project promoter pointed the finger at the Spanish company for the problems encountered, it is clear that the causes of the failure are multiple and complex.
For the solar industry, this failure should serve as an important lesson. The transition to cleaner, more sustainable energy is essential, but it will not be without challenges. By leveraging the lessons learned here, it is possible to overcome these challenges and ensure that future solar projects are better prepared for success.