I think it's misguided to talk about it being "not that much energy". 800 Megawatts? that's a HUGE amount of power, and there are a ton of virtues that solar power has that coal does not. There is no lung disease associated with solar power. there is no smog associated with solar power. there are no heath bills that our taxes spend paying for to sweep up after using solar power. the earth's climate as we know it will NOT be destroyed or seriously altered if we use solar power. nobody is going to make up false evidence in order to invade a country, just to get their solar power. there's no half-life or DNA-altering aspect to generating power from the sun. (you can get a tan of course..)  but those differences are significant - they are all really, really good - I don't see how coal and nuclear can compare in those respects. don't people add up the costs of pollution - because we do pay for it, anyway.

secondly - why don't we focus on services rather than kilowatt hours. why switch to solar if you're going to use hot incandescent lights, inefficient refrigeration. why stay in the past if you're adopting a future technology? can you keep your house lit with solar electricity? yes. can you power an energy efficient fridge? yes. can you power a low-wattage state of thje art intel core2 duo laptop? yes. can you power an LCD flatscreen television? yes. can you run a heat pump to heat your house? yes. can you power everything you used to when you were using coal and other polluting or incredibly dangerous and toxic materials, without any price difference whatsoever? no, absolutely not. change involves difference - the energy is generated in a totally different way.

if you are into DIY solar, might be worth checking out:

http://www.solarnetwork.net/

Solar guys fail to say how much material is needed to build the many gigwatt units they seek:  They should know that about 150 times  less material is needed for nuclear power plants having the same ENERGY OUTPUT as solar units have. I specified ENERGY, not just power outputs,  because power designates ONLY the RATE of making or using electricity, not electric energy, which is what counts. We pay our bills in kilowatt HOURS, not just kilowatts.

Those who are happy about the 800 MW solar unit forget that its capacity factor will be about 23%,  provided that it is located in the sunniest part of the the US, and much less than this,if it isn't. 

With proper equipment (non including a short circuit, but not providing extra energy) I can get a billion watts from my car battery, but it will be available for only a small fraction of a second.

WATTS ALONE MEAN NOTHING! TO REPEAT: PER TERAWATT-YEAR OF ELECTRIC ENERGY OVER THEIR LIFETIME, SOLAR POWER PLANTS  REQUIRE 150 TIMES MORE MATERIAL THAN NUCLEAR UNITS DO, AND WILL LEAVE PLENTY OF TOXIC MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY IF THEY USE  PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS THAT, ACORDING TO MAKE, CONTAIN ARSENIC, GALLIUM, CADMIUM AND OTHER TOXIC MATERIALS.

NUCLEAR RESIDUES SHOULD BE RECYCLED, AS FRANCE  AND OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING, TO SHARPLY CUT THE RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS OF THEIR RERMAINING RESIDUES, WHILE GETTING  EXTRA ELECTRIC ENERGY OUT OF THEM IN THE PROCESS.

SOLAR UNITS ARE UNRELIABLE, REQUIRE AT LEAST 20 TIMES MORE  MAINTENANCE THAN NUKES DO PER KILOWTATT-HOUR OF ELECTRTIC ENERGY, AND NEED HUGE FACILITIES TO STORE ELECTRIC ENERGY WHEN THE SUN IS NOT SHINING -- WHICH HAPPENS EVEN IN DESERT AREAS SOMETIMES THREE TO FIVE DAYS IN A ROW. BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT  OF MATERIAL THEY NEED PER UNIT ENERGY, SOLAR PLANTS WOULD  EVEN BE DISASTROUS TO OUR ECOLOGY, IF WE STARTED TO BUILD  THEM IN THE NUMBERS NEEDED TO SATISFY OUR ELECTRICITY REQUIREMENT. THIS WOULD HOLD PARTICULARLY FOR SOLAR ELECTRIC PLANTS USING PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS(PV'S).

WE REPEAT:  DEPENDING ON THEIR MAKE, PV'S CONTAIN GALLIUM, CADMIUM, AND ARSENIC, ALL TOXIC MATERIALS. THEIR OUTPUT DETRIORATES WITH TIME, AND THIER OPERATING LIFESPAN IS ONLY 25 TO 30 YEARS, BUT THEIR TOXICITY LASTS FOREVER.

WE WOULD HAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF OUTWORN PV'S PLACED IN HUNREDS OF SQUARE MILES  OF WASTE YARDS, AND THIS WOULD CREATE A FAR LARGER HAZARD THAN THE VASTLY SMALLER AMOUNTS OF WASTES FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, ESPECIALLY IF THESE "WASTES" WERE FIRST RECYCLED TO REMOVE MOST OF THEIR RADIOACTIVE HAZARD. 

GIVE ME A ONE GIGAWATT NUKE POWER UNIT, NO MATTER WHERE IT IS PLACED,  FOR FOUR SOLAR PLANTS, EACH WITH A TOP OUPTUT OF TEN GIGAWWATTS, ALL  LOCATED EVEN IN CALIFORNIA'S SUNNY DESERT.  PER KILOWATT HOUR OF ELECTRICITY, THE NUKE PLANT WILL, OVER ITS LIFETIME OF 50 YEARS, PRODUCE AT LEAST TWICE  THE ELECTRIC ENERGY OF  ALL FOUR SOLAR UNITS COMBINED.

YOU WANT TO BREAK AMERICA,  GO SOLAR FOR ELECTRICITY.   YOU WANT TO SAVE AMRERICA, GO FOR BUILDING MORE  NUKES.  THEY NEVER KILLED A SINGLE PERSON.  THIS HOLDS  EVEN FOR THREE MILE ISLAND. AND DON'T COMPARE US NUKE PLANTS  TO THOSE THE FRIENDS OF FONDA BUILT -- THE NUKE PLANTS OF THE REDS.

ALSO, DON'T COMPARE TMI TO CHERNOBYL. THE LATTER  HAD NO SAFEY FEATURES IN DEPTH AS OURS POSSESS.

Mike

Kevin,

Yes 800 MW is small in comparision to the 4-5TW needed for the United States, but we should be looking not at one method of production for our energy needs.

The tantilizing aspect of solar is that it ramps up in max power output when we need it most. Companies like Enernoc make a fortune on having companies turn on their back up generators (much less efficient aka >CO2) than even coal power plants. In Connecticut, the power companies have portible generators in neighborhoods to make sure people have power during the summer days.

In the future, solar will be used to help address peak demand and there will be less concern with trying to make it last at night when demand is much lower.

Kevin,

The world does not need huge solar power farms.

Readers should take an unbiased look at the Small Is Beautiful essays collection.

The reason behind huge supply side solar power is simple: extending the useful life of the price control business model of winning rate cases to the regulator.

Yes! Solar power is distributed but to make it beautiful, the government needs to get out of the electricity business of negotiating prices in the name of the end customers. In a sense, what is needed is an Electricity Without Price Controls (EWPC) market architecture and design paradigm shift to enabled a new Energy Policy Act (EPAct). That EPAct will then allow business model innovations to emerge in an open market, under prudential regulations to protect the end customers. Unlike deregulation, EWPC keeps a controlled transportation market with a responsibility to transport.

For more details take a look at the EWPC articles Can the Power Industry Eliminate its Price Controls to the End Customer? and Nanosolar Breakthrough and the Old Paradigm (that is bound to be beautiful among many other demand side energy resources).

Aug 29, 2008. A comment to update this post was deleted today. The key insight is in the link to the EWPC article Let’s Avoid Many Expensive Fiascos which shows the power utilities price control business models are in a dead end and that regulators are making excessive risks that will go into customers' pockets as soon as the new investments go into infant mortality or premature obsolescence. The articles’ summary reads:

There is no need to cite any evidence “to enable a highly competitive, pro-consumer, complete and fully functional market architecture and design paradigm shift.” What is needed is to have “the global power industry … get out of the wrong jungle to produce a EWPC based EPAct as soon as possible.”

Three key references is the EWPC article are Warren Causey’s article Utilities Full Speed Ahead on IUE/SG: The Question is What to do First, the EWPC article Utilities and Regulators’ Value Destruction, and the EWPC article Leadership Answers What to do First.

The key line in Kevin's post is "The new installations are yet another sign of a rapidly expanding solar industry."

According to multiple sources, solar electricity generation is growing at a cumulative annual rate of more than 40%. That translates to more than doubling every two years. (The magic of exponential growth.)

So, even though 800 MW seems like small potatoes compared to the multi-terawatt demand today, it only takes a relatively few doublings to get to significant values. You can reasonably expect the announcement in ten years to be about 25 gigawatts of new projects from PG&E. Don't forget that this current pair of projects only represents a small fraction of the solar projects underway around the world.

We need to also be focusing on efficiency, and reducing our frivolous personal consumption levels. People just don't think about how all those extra lights and appliances add up. I have neighbors that run their air conditioning units non stop, day and night, even when it's 80 degrees or less outside, making it comfortably 70 degrees inside my house without air conditioning. People just need to think about turning off appliances they don't need. There are also natural alternatives to high energy products, for example, try an old fashioned clothes drying stand. There is a very satisfying feeling knowing that natural air currents and/or the sun is drying our clothes for free. Also, solar water heaters could/should be used to reduce a significant amount of common electrical demand, for most americans for a good portion of the year. These and other small changes can reduce your electrical needs incredibly (and save you a lot of money).

And of course we need to make more efficient appliances to begin with.

  I think Mike should live next to Three Mile Island, and I should live next to the new solar plant and see who sleeps better.
  I am not truly against nuclear, I just think solar is safer and will be easier to impliment.
  I am willing to pay an extra 10 cents a KWH for that.....

Myth: nuclear power is cheap and safe.
Fact: nuclear power industry is heavily subsidized by the federal government, which covers the cost of waste disposal and the liability insurance in case of a catastrophic failure. If it so easy to reprocess radioactive waste why are not they doing it? If it is so safe why don't they cover this cost themselves?

Solar and wind for the most part are not considered base load, but geothermal is... There is a molten ball of lava 40,000 kilometers around just beneath our feet.

See Abundant Power from Universal Geothermal Energy for more on this.

The truth is there is no "ONE" solution, but a bunch of pieces of the puzzle that will need to come together to solve our energy problems.

Go ahead.  Blow yourselves up.  The problem with people like you is that you look to tomorrow, but not to next week, or next month. As long as you put yourselves in a position where you are vunerable, you will never have total freedom.