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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe