Clinton promises solar sunrise, will Ausra deliver?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Good old Bill Clinton has done it again. Perhaps inspired by David Mills' speculation on the capacity of solar thermal power plants to deliver emissions-free electricity in this country, his confab going on in NYC presently has united said visionary's solar thermal company Ausra with utility giants Florida Power and Light (FPL) and Pacfic Gas and Electric (PG&E). According to a press release, FPL has committed to building 500 megawatts of solar thermal power while PG&E promised to purchase 1,000 megawatts of electricity generated at such solar thermal power plants. No word on exactly where such plants might be built, but California has plenty of strong solar resource (and already hosts one of the world's oldest solar thermal power plant) as do adjacent states. And Florida gets enough sunshine to make Ausra's technology viable, at least according to its proponents. "Anywhere you get 4.5 [kilowatts-per-hour of sunshine] per square meter on an average day around the year or better you are in the money with these plants," says John O'Donnell, Ausra's executive vice president. A lot of promises get made at the Clinton Global Initiative but not all of them are fulfilled. Remember the billion dollar "Green Fund" to invest in renewable energy and headed up by former World Bank president James Wolfensohn from last year? That effort was organized by Vinod Khosla, who is also the money man behind Ausra. Apparently, that wilted. Living up to the promise, both for this commitment and the technology, will be the problem.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe