Talk:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

somewhat dated
as the project is completed shouldn't this article be changed to present/past tense and start having some metrics on operations....

--108.28.131.107 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely. You can help with that!  The first thing is to find more recent sources of information: for example, there should be news stories about the completion of the project and beginning of operation.  If you can find some good sources, you are welcome to add them to the article and update the text.  If you prefer, you could link the sources here for others to use in editing the article.  Thanks. --Amble (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * These may be useful:, , . --Amble (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Power rating
Gross or net ? Here the documentation for ps_electrical_capacity in Infobox documentation. Current gross installed capacity in megawatts, or planned capacity from those under development. If 110 MW is the Power Station net output, gross capacity should be something more. If value is not stated, the best guess is the power turbine capacity, as by provided source. --Robertiki (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Both the developer and the owner give the rating of the power station as 110MW. I think what's important is what is delivered to the grid, the customer, gross is irrelevant.  Wikipedia definition is a bit idiotic and contradictory. The Infobox definition implys gross but the associated popup referrers to Nameplate capacity i.e "Nameplate capacity is the number registered with authorities for classifying the power output of a power station usually expressed in megawatts (MW)" which would be nett.  --Andynct (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * EPC Contractor ACS Cobra, as sourced, states 125 MW. Sorry, but gross power is what was agreed. Otherwise, what happens, if some write the net power, other instead follow the instructions ? A mess.--Robertiki (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * With your definition you are claiming that every nuclear power plant on Wikipedia is listed incorrectly as they are listed by net power output and not gross power output and always have?  So every power station listing on wikipedia needs to change?  Have you actually thought about it?  I don't think so.  Are you insisting nuclear power stations pages inflate there output figures by about 50MW per reactor?Andynct (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As per Template:Infobox_power_station for ps_electrical_capacity, instructions are: "Current  gross  installed capacity in megawatts, ...". You could propose to change that. --Robertiki (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Standard utility terms define gross generation as what is measured across the generator terminals and net generation as what is sold to the grid. The difference is known as plant aux power and is what is used for plant purposes such as the molten salt circulating pumps, boiler feed pumps, fans for the air condenser and power to position the plant heliostats in reference to the position of the sun. There are probably others but these are the big users. For a plant of this size 15 MW ( 125 gross - 110 net) seems about right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgs351a (talk • contribs) 20:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150212024726/http://www.solarreserve.com:80/what-we-do/csp-projects/crescent-dunes/ to http://www.solarreserve.com/what-we-do/csp-projects/crescent-dunes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Crescent Dunes commissioning
The commissioning of a thermal plant is not like flipping a switch of a photovoltaic plant or a wind turbine. It takes time, more if it's a prototype. It follows at least three stages: An example is the new Edwardsport Power Station. Completed in 2012 (2015), started operation in 2013 (2016), and ramped up production until 2015 (2018). And Crescent Dunes suffered an 8 month freeze due to a leak in a molten salt tank (and that would give 2019 to be a fair timing). Why Ivanpah and Crescent Dunes are so studded with unfair critical sarcasm, and no one does the same with the coal plants that take a similar timing ? Beside, how can a calculated capacity factor be accepted without at least one straight year of production ? Is it the way to compare or evaluate a technology based only on a partial year ? That would/should be enough, but I will take a look at the cited source. The reputation of the cited source is questionable, the first author, for example has some critics at least. And it may look understandable if you look for who Alberto Boretti has worked. Stefania Castelletto works for the automotive industry at a Australian University. Sarim Al-Zubaidy is more a politician. I won't comment further about that. --Robertiki (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the first grid connection
 * the commercial production stage
 * the production ramp-up


 * Multiple references refer to the project as being commissioned in 2016. This was two years ago. I don't think there is any unfair bias against this technology. It is a new technology which proved to have some problems in the beginning, which is normal. This does not mean you can delete referenced statements because you don't like them. Hopefully the plant will work at full power soon. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you find sources that back your claim that the plant need over 2 years of ramp-up and this was planned, please include them. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is from :

"Under the rollout plan with NV Energy, Crescent Dunes will now begin its official ramp-up over the coming year, with generation increasing gradually each month.

“The PPA gives us a year to ramp up. There is that flexibility because it recognizes that this is a completely new technology at this scale. However, based on the successful test results to date, we believe the ramp-up period will take less than the official timeframe.”

Crescent Dunes completed synchronization with the grid in October. Then, fittingly, the first 24-hr solar tower in the US generated its test electricity at 11 o’clock at night."


 * it seems the planned ramp up period from the contract was 1 year. Grid synchronization was in October 2015, over 2.5 years ago. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Robertiki: where do you see "unfair critical sarcasm"? The sentence you keep removing is just a factual statement of the current history of the plant's production, confirmed by reliable sources, including the EIA figures. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I will split the talk in two, opening a second about the capacity factor. Now about the Renew Economy article. First, context is critical. The article is dated February 2018. In February the data available was up to October 2017. Mr. Leitch made his comment with only 16 months of production data over a 25 month period, starting from the day one connection to the grid. And I won't comment further observing that the data indicates that they were still testing the mirrors movement, because there are no much other technical reasons the 2016 summer production could not reproduced in 2017. What Mr.Leitch should have done (is it or not his job ?) is to ask SolarRererve about that. Not asking is keen as not wanting to now. And that happens with many comments about the solar towers, IMHO. Again, writing: “Leaving aside any questions of how that could happen, or why it should take 8 months to repair ...”, is it not a rethorical question ? Instead of wondering, why not ask first SolarReserve ?
 * I am aware that multiple references state the project as being commissioned in 2016. But, if you look objectively the production data up to 2016, you don't need to be an expert to understand that they are simply wrong. I would say that those who write that, are not accustomed with che complexity of a steam plant commissioning, maybe because they write mostly about PV and wind, technologies, which from the user viewpoint, are really simple to understand: you flip a switch and have power directly starting from the grid connection day. Add to the steam turbine tuning problems also the novelty of finding the optimal constant mirror movement, and the picture should be clear. No unfair bias ? Maybe (but the wording is often scathing). But surely a crass ignorance about the the technical subtlety of a steam plant complex technology (multiple turbine stages, spilling fine tuning to reach optimal efficiency, and so on …). Sources about a claim that a steam plant need over 2 years of ramp-up are not needed, because you only have to look at the EIA production data of all new coal plants (it is like asking if 2 + 2 = 4, you simply look and count the marbles on the table). Add over that the complexity of focusing thousands of mirror in constant movement and you get the Ivanpah 3 year ramp-up. Look at unit 1 and unit 3 production data (unit 2 had a delay due to a destructive fire event).
 * Was it planned ? What do you think ? SolarReserve management (which makes the ads) was aware about steam plants ramp-up problem ? I don't know. But maybe not ?
 * Your source (beside, about how many times has it commented about steam plants ? at date, was SolarReserve management aware of the intricacies exposed at Ivanpah ?) implies a year ramp up. Now, in 2018, are their still any doubts that it was wrong ? ("we believe the ramp-up period will take less than the official timeframe" ? a steam plant ? kidding ?). And is there not a (unaware) unfair bias to write: “Grid synchronization was in October 2015, over 2.5 years ago” forgetting that of the 2,5 years, one third was of stoppage ? You may find thousands of sources stating one point, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, you have to look at the sources competence on the specific matter. And anyway, on technical aspects, any source filled with rethorical questions should be taken very carefully: Wikipedia is no newspaper or forum. --Robertiki (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Crescent Dunes capacity factor
I have not deleted the referenced source because I you don't like it, but because it is utterly wrong, and, over that, the lead author appears to have already a peer review problem with another print. The capacity factor is a statistical parameter. If made up without statistical considerations, it is simply stated, a lie. You can't take a partial year production data and place a “actual 13%” claim in the Infobox. No matter how many sources you find! You may write it in the article body, but only as a temporary status indication, not as a definite conclusion in the Infobox. The Infobox Capacity Factor definition is: “The net capacity factor is the ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period.”. But the energy output relevant in the Infobox is a five year average, and that should be obvious: the Infobox purpose is to give a concise plant performance indication for fast comparison of different plants and thecnologies. Any temporary phase should stay in the text body. Until at least a couple of years of straight production is available, the only data placed in the Infobox should be the planned or estimated data, under projected fully operational conditions. Robertiki (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Don't we do some math before placing a source ? If source states that 2+2=3 would you reference it in a encyclopedia ? --Robertiki (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Definition of the capacity factor
From the linked definition "The net capacity factor is the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over that period.". Usually calculation starts with: "The maximum possible energy output of a given installation assumes its continuous operation at full nameplate capacity over the relevant period.". You would multiply the nameplate capacity by 24 hours by 365 days (366 days for a leap year) and use it as a ratio under the actual gross production value. Let's look at what we have with Crescent Dunes: 125 MW of nameplate capacity to start with. But the infobox documentation states: "Current gross installed capacity in megawatts" (I will look further the matter on the relevant infobox talk page). The actual plant (not generator) maximum output is only 110 MW (and that should be the nameplate value, i.e. after the power transformers), so we have a significant difference. Anyway, choosing net power or gross power is not of big concern, if we match it with the correct production value. In other words, capacity factor calculation referenced to gross power should be matched with the gross production data, and capacity factor calculation referenced to net power should be matched with net production data. The referenced generation data source (EIA) states that the values given are "Net generation : Crescent Dunes Solar Energy (57275)", so the correct capacity factor, to be unitless, needs that production data to be matched to the plant (i.e. the net) output: 195810 / (110 * 24 * 365) = 195810 / 963600 = 20,32% --Robertiki (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I assure you I know perfectly well what a capacity factor is. As you said, it is calculated on the nameplate capacity. So you can have one of this option: either you change the number for "nameplate capacity" in the infobox to your cited 110 MW, or you reinstate my number for the CF calculated on the cited 125 MW. You can't have both. As it is now, it is simply inconsistent. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no where a assumption that the infobox data is there to compute more infobox data. If it were so, logic would state that the simple capacity factor ratio would be computed automatically and looking how many time discussions are made about the capacity factor calculation, I think it should be done that way. Anyway, I have already started a talk to put in order the documentation on Nameplate capacity. --Robertiki (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The infobox needs to be consistent, as the rest of the article. I propose to add a gross and net generation capacity to the infobox. It looks like the EIA considers net generation, so the CF should be computed on the net capacity. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

No connection to Solyndra
About following edit, there is no known connection with Solyndra. Many projects receive a DOE loan guarantee, but that is not a connection. Please explain why it should be made. --Robertiki (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Capacity 57 MW versus 110 MW
I don't understand the following edit, that reads: It substantially missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its 57MW capacity factor (i.e., 20% of 110MW boilerplate) on an annual basis, resulting in lawsuits and changes of control. Please explain. --Robertiki (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Project's monthly outpoint in 2019 was exceeded by several months in 2018
Regarding the edit, I can't see what is stated in the comment:  removing another false statement -- the project's monthly outpoint in 2019 was exceeded by several months in 2018. Please explain. --Robertiki (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

‎Production: cite makes no reference to "commissioning"
Regarding the edit, comment states that: cite makes no reference to "commissioning, asking, what seems, "a connection of a blocking fault with the suspension of the commissioning activity". Am I right ? The second source of the Production section describes a 8 month outage: would that not stop commissioning progression ? In the Technology section we read that the tanks take two months to melt. Would that contribute to the delay ? --Robertiki (talk) 12:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Poor-quality, misleading claims on power production
A contentious, edit-warring editor has been incorrectly reverting (and reverting, and reverting) the lede to claim that Crescent Dunes hit 40% of "capacity" without any other appropriate points of reference. This claim is false & misleading as it occurs in the same breath as stating the boilerplate, maximum capacity of 110MW. Thus claiming 40% is false by any cogent measure, and is only referenceable as regards "capacity factor," which is a reference to what is essentially a guesstimate as to how much production will occur versus how much time the plant will be offline. Capacity factor is fluid...not fixed...so trying to claim the plant as 40% of "capacity" with a veiled, unstated reference to "capacity factor" is doomed to fail. Other editors have pointed this out as well.

Crescent Dunes only achieved about 20% of its nameplate, maximum capacity. The lede needs to clearly state this. A(nother), new citation has been added that makes this plain & clear as well.

Best guess is that the edit-warring editor is political in nature, not technical, and thus continues to err by stepping outside their competency. That's not a good vector for creating a good encyclopedia; I suggest spending time elsewhere.

The new citation (1/10/2020, https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a30472835/crescent-dunes-solar-plant/) does substantially shift the semantics in a good direction by speaking specifically of efficiency (an appropriate reference, again, to maximum capacity), which is a fundamentally correct & fixed point of reference (and not fluid, such as capacity factor) and should help both the article and the readers' (and editor's) understandings.

--2600:1700:80:5AD0:5989:234B:79D5:639 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please, no personal attacks. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collegial atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans, even to IP addresses. I am forced to explain it in this talk page, because you have no talk page. I suggest you get an account for yourself and login with it.
 * Your IP 2600:1700:80:5AD0:5989:234B:79D5:639 is the first time it appears in the page revision history, so I am asking you, to understand why you are attacking me out of the cold, if you have edit before as IP 104.15.130.191. No need to answer, if you don’t like.
 * Anyway, I am pleased to have a talk, after waiting since October to have an exchange about what is not agreed. If an editor refuses an invitation to explain (I gave four invitations starting October), and insists to re-reverse others edits, it is tantamount to vandalism. And vandalism reverting is exempt from edit warring rules. And because you have accepted to talk, I won't reverse your edit, for now.
 * And now, let us start talking. Here is a collection of the edits about the capacity which I disagree:


 * revision 921469656: (my edit)
 * “’’missed its intended power production over its four-year lifespan by only achieving about 20% of its capacity on an annual basis,’’”
 * “’’missed its intended power production over one full-year span by only achieving about 40% of its capacity on an annual basis,’’”


 * revision 923261125: (my edit)
 * ”’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its 57MW capacity factor (i.e., 20% of 110MW nameplate capacity) on an annual basis,’’”
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its capacity on an annual basis,’’”


 * revision 932634193: (my edit)
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its capacity factor on an annual basis (i.e., 20% of nameplate capacity),’’”
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its planned amount,’’”


 * revision 935025441: (my edit)
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its planned amount,’’”
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 20% of its maximum capacity,’’”


 * revision 935218478: (my edit)
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 20% of its maximum capacity,’’”
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its planned amount,’’”


 * revision 935254341: (your edit)
 * “’’missed its intended power production by only achieving about 40% of its planned amount, ‘’”
 * “’’missed its intended 50%-efficient power production by only achieving about 20% efficiency,’’”
 * Until yesterday, the sentence object was power production, now you changed it to power production efficiency.
 * Some facts:
 * energy production is measured in kW⋅h, MW⋅h or GW⋅h and so on. Maximum Crescent Dunes output was expected as 500 GW⋅h.
 * power production efficiency is the rate of power produced over primary energy input (rate of useful output to total input). Maximum Crescent Dunes efficiency could not be over that of a standard steam turbine, that is 38%. Estimating grossly a 50% mirror concentrating and capture efficiency, how could ever global Crescent Dunes efficiency been "intended" 50% efficient ?! A 20% efficiency, also known as conversion efficiency, would be what was expected from the start.
 * So, what about is your source talking ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * IP editor has reverted once more and refuses to talk. Suggesting semi-protection of the page. Any comment ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I corrected obvious technical mistakes in lead, such as a reference to efficiency instead of capacity factor. If disruptive edits continue from IPs I suggest asking for a temporary protection. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

IPs vandalism
Since May 2020 I wasn't looking here. Now I have spotted the removal of a bunch of facts I deem important. I have restored, plus a new source, a couple of facts, but before overhauling lost information perusing the full article history from 2019 (when the more active IP 104.15.130.191 started), I am proposing to protect the page to exclude IPs from editing. --Robertiki (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)