
This alien-like field of mirrors in the desert was once the future of solar energy. It's closing after just 11 years
From a distance, the Ivanpah solar plant looks like a shimmering lake in the Mojave Desert. Up close, it's a vast alien-like installation of hundreds of thousand of mirrors pointed at three towers, each taller than the Statue of Liberty.
When this plant opened near the California-Nevada border in early 2014, it was pitched as the future of solar power. Just over a decade later, it's closing.
The plant's co-owner NRG Energy announced in January it was unwinding contracts with power companies and, subject to regulatory approval, would begin closing the plant in early 2026, readying the site to potentially be repurposed for a new kind of solar energy.
For some, Ivanpah now stands as a huge, shiny monument to wasted tax dollars and environmental damage — campaign groups long criticized the plant for its impact on desert wildlife. For others, failures like this are a natural part of the race to find the winning solutions for the clean energy transition.
When Ivanpah was conceived, its technology, called concentrated solar or thermal solar, was considered a potential breakthrough.
It works like this: Hundreds of thousands of computer-controlled mirrors called 'heliostats' track the sun and concentrate its rays onto three towers, each around 450 feet tall and topped with water-filled boilers. The sun's hyper-concentrated energy turns this water to steam, which drives a turbine to create electricity.
One of the key selling points of this solar technology is the ability to store heat, allowing the production of electricity at night or when the sun isn't shining without needing batteries.
The project got buy-in from the government with $1.6 billion in Department of Energy loan guarantees, and from utilities Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison, which both entered long-term agreements to buy Ivanpah's power.
In 2014, it started commercial operations as the world's largest solar thermal plant, spread across around 5 square miles of federal desert.
'This project is a symbol of the exciting progress we are seeing across the industry,' said then Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, in February 2014 during a dedication ceremony at the site.
So, where did it go wrong?
First, the technology proved finnicky and never quite worked as well as intended, said Jenny Chase, a solar analyst at BloombergNEF.
These kinds of plants 'are just technically really difficult to operate,' she told CNN. They combine all the tricky, mechanical parts of a fossil fuel plant — running a turbine and maintaining many moving parts — with the challenges of a distributed energy source. The technology relies on mirrors tracking the sun exactly. 'It's really hard to get those all lined up perfectly and keep them lined up at all times,' Chase said.
But perhaps the biggest problem for Ivanpah is that photovoltaic solar — the technology used in solar panels — became really, really cheap.
In some parts of the world 'you can basically buy a solar module for the price of a fence panel,' Chase said. At the time Ivanpah was built, 'nobody really would have dreamed that photovoltaics would be this cheap, and batteries are doing a similar thing,' she added.
A spokesperson for NRG said prices were competitive when the power agreements were signed in 2009. But over time, advancements in other types of solar technology 'led to more efficient, cost effective and flexible options for producing reliable clean energy.'
In January, NRG finalized negotiations with PG&E to terminate power purchase agreements which were supposed to end in 2039. This 'will provide significant savings for California ratepayers,' the company's spokesperson said.
A spokesperson for Southern California Edison said it was in ongoing discussions with the plant owners and the DOE about its contract.
For critics of Ivanpah, its imminent demise is proof the plant should never have been built.
It 'was a financial boondoggle and environmental disaster,' said Julia Dowell, senior campaign organizer at the Sierra Club, an environmental organization. 'The project's construction destroyed irreplaceable pristine desert habitat,' she told CNN.
Ivanpahs's location in the sweeping, sun-drenched Mojave Desert may have seemed ideal for generating solar power, but it is also a habitat for threatened desert tortoises. While the plant's developers agreed to a series of measures to protect and relocate the animals, many environmentalists believed the plant should not have been approved.
The other big issue was bird deaths. Reports of 'streamers' — birds incinerated midair by the beams of intense heat from the mirrors — solidified opposition.
NRG did not respond to specific questions about the plant's impact on wildlife.
Some commentators are using Ivanpah to make the case that renewable energy projects should not receive government money, a view that appears to fit with the new administration's. One of President Donald Trump's first actions was to pause approvals of new renewable energy projects on federal land.
But renewable energy experts say it's important for governments to invest in a range of clean technologies, and many of those they have invested in, such as photovoltaics, have worked out.
It wasn't clear which solar technologies would prove most cost effective when Ivanpah was being built 15 years ago, said Kenneth Gillingham, an economics professor at Yale School of the Environment.
'Picking winners is extremely difficult,' he told CNN, 'and it's not a problem that some technologies are outcompeted by others, as long as innovation continues occurring.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
13 hours ago
- New York Times
After His Trump Blowup, Musk May Be Out. But DOGE Is Just Getting Started.
Elon Musk's blowup with President Trump may have doomed Washington's most potent partnership, but the billionaire's signature cost-cutting project has become deeply embedded in Mr. Trump's administration and could be there to stay. At the Department of Energy, for example, a former member of the Department of Government Efficiency is now serving as the chief of staff. At the Interior Department, DOGE members have been converted into federal employees and embedded into the agency, said a person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. And at the Environmental Protection Agency, where a spokeswoman said that there are two senior officials associated with the DOGE mission, work continues apace on efforts to dismantle an agency that Mr. Trump has long targeted. 'They are still internally going forward; we don't really feel as if anything has stopped here,' said Nicole Cantello, a former lawyer for the E.P.A. who represents its union in Chicago. Whether DOGE keeps its current Musk-inspired form remains an open question. Some DOGE members on Friday expressed concern that the president could choose to retaliate against Mr. Musk by firing people associated with the initiative. Others could choose to leave on their own, following Mr. Musk out the door. And DOGE's role, even its legality, remain the subject of legal battles amid questions over its attempts to use sensitive government data. But the approach that DOGE embodied at the outset — deep cuts in spending, personnel and projects — appears to have taken root. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Attacks on Climate Policy Are Even Hitting Exxon
Earlier this week, the Department of Energy announced that it was clawing back $3.7 billion that its Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations had awarded, during Joe Biden's administration, to 24 projects. The funds were rescinded, according to the department, after 'a thorough and individualized financial review.' On its own, this news isn't all that remarkable. The Trump administration has been axing climate programs for months, and $3.7 billion is relatively small potatoes compared to the thorough gutting of Biden's signature achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, that Republicans are queuing up in their budget bill. Some of the biggest awards being cut, however, are for a technology that's won the support not merely of Biden administration officials but fossil fuel executives and Congressional Republicans too. Carbon capture storage and sequestration, or CCS, uses specialized equipment to remove carbon dioxide from industrial processes, to be either stored indefinitely or utilized for some other purpose, like carbonating soft drinks or getting more oil out of wells. Among climate advocates, carbon capture has been the subject of fierce debate; many of them see it as a way for polluters to carry on with business as usual by promising to someday suck the carbon out of their carbon-intensive industries. But carbon capture faces bigger, more immediate challenges than either controversy or canceled DOE grants: It's expensive, generally unprofitable, and still not all that great at actually capturing and storing carbon. As the Trump administration continues its quest to kill measures that might have forced corporations to clean up their acts, moreover, some of the main drivers of corporate interest in the technology are disappearing. Countries and companies alike have walked away from climate goals that, in some cases, would have relied heavily on carbon capture to meet. If policymakers aren't going to make companies cut carbon emissions, why would they keep pouring billions of dollars into costly, arguably ineffective technologies to do just that? The simple answer is that there are still plenty of subsidies available for it. A substantial tax credit known as 45Q—offering a maximum of $85 per metric ton of captured carbon dioxide—was preserved in the budget proposal the House sent over to the Senate late last month. Yet it's still not clear what version of the GOP's megabill will eventually pass, and fiddling with certain conditions of that subsidy could make or break some companies' ability to court financing. The Department of Energy's clawing back of its awards hasn't riled the industry as much as lingering uncertainty about the fate of federal tax credits, said Anika Juhn, an energy analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. 'In general, most of the companies that are working on projects that integrate CCS are in this 'wait and see' moment around 45Q,' she told me. Even with tax credits available, the longer-term economics of the technology remain uncertain. Rohan Dighe, an analyst at the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, told the Financial Times that 45Q 'is and continues to be insufficient to justify widespread deployment of post-combustion carbon capture.' Even those critical of the exorbitant expense and energy demand of carbon capture for coal and gas power see potential for using it in limited circumstances. Two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions involved in cement production, for instance, come from heating up limestone so as to calcify it; that chemical reaction produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct. With alternatives still fledgling, capturing carbon from cement production might significantly reduce pollution from an industry responsible for as much as 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Scenarios compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on paths for limiting global warming to 1.5 and 2 degrees, are also largely premised on the world figuring out how to rapidly scale up its ability to capture and store carbon. There are compelling arguments, that is, for investing in CCS and trying to make it work. But corporate polluters aren't in the business of meeting climate goals, and their investments in CCS will be guided by where they can profit the most, not how they can reduce the most emissions. There are quiet signs that the Biden-era enthusiasm for carbon capture could be starting to cool. Earlier this week, the energy data and analytics group Enverus Intelligence Research reported that applications to store captured carbon fell by 50 percent in the first quarter of 2025 from the same period the year before. Fewer applications were submitted then at any time since 2022, and none of those permits were approved. Industry experts say the dip has to do with uncertainty over federal tax credits, and fears that 45Q could get swept up in the GOP's broader legislative attack on the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. For now, that doesn't seem to be the case. Republicans' tax bill would, however, severely limit a provision making it much easier for smaller firms to take advantage of the tax credit. That could end up being a boon for huge companies that have already invested heavily in carbon capture. Among the grants being terminated by the Department of Energy is $332 million for a project at ExxonMobil's Houston-area Baytown chemical plant, where the company still claims it will eventually capture 98 percent of carbon dioxide generated by producing hydrogen from methane gas. Exxon hasn't commented on the grant cancelation, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the company's recent investments in carbon management. Exxon's $5 billion acquisition of the pipeline firm Denbury in 2023 made it into the largest owner and operator of carbon dioxide storage in the U.S. Late last year, Exxon also secured a lease from Texas for the country's largest offshore CO2 storage site. Why does Exxon want to be in the carbon management business? There are modest but growing markets abroad for carbon-derived products like ammonia. Although Exxon's Baytown hydrogen plant has yet to reach a final investment decision, the company has signed off-take agreements with Mitsubishi, the South Korean firm SK Inc., and Japan's Marubeni Corp., which intends to use Exxon's ammonia to fuel a gas-fired power plant there. ADNOC—the United Arab Emirates' state-owned oil-producer—acquired a 35 percent equity stake in the project last September. Stateside, Exxon has also inked major deals with deep-pocketed tech companies to provide gas power to data centers for AI, premised in part on the idea that it'll at some point be 'net zero emissions' thanks to carbon capture. Even if the U.S. isn't poised to demand that oil and gas companies reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, other countries might. Starting in 2026, the European Union, for instance, will tariff importers of carbon-intensive goods like hydrogen and ammonia. Equipping petrochemical manufacturing operations with carbon scrubbing devices could ease compliance. Given Exxon's size, moreover, an injection of federal dollars could set the company up to control whatever market for carbon storage does develop in the U.S., even if actual climate regulations are a long ways off. For now, the Trump administration is preserving Exxon and its competitors' right to spew as many greenhouse gasses as they want. Corporations continuing to invest in carbon capture may represent a longer-term bet that some kind of regulation on carbon dioxide will happen eventually, either through more widespread carbon pricing or direct regulations of greenhouse gas emissions. Two things can be true: Companies like Exxon intend to continue drilling for oil and gas for as possible, and they also see a modest yet growing market for certain low-carbon technologies that they have the cash and expertise to gain a foothold in. This isn't exactly great news for the planet. Mostly, it's a reminder that a proliferation of 'green technologies' doesn't spell the end of dirtier ones.


Forbes
3 days ago
- Forbes
‘Strawberry Moon' June 2025: See The Lowest Full Moon Since 2006
The full strawberry moon — the final full moon of spring in the Northern Hemisphere — will turn full on Wednesday, June 11, 2025. However, it will be best seen at moonrise on Tuesday, June 10 as it appears in the east during dusk. It takes its name from the ripening of summer berries in North America during June. It's also the lowest-hanging full moon not only of the year, but since 2006 because of a once-in-18.6-years occurrence called the 'major lunar standstill.' The full Strawberry Moon sets behind the Statue of Liberty before sunrise on June 4, 2023, in New ... More York City. (Photo by) The strawberry moon will turn full at 3:45 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, June 11, 2025, 10 days before the solstice on Saturday, June 21, 2025. It will look full the night before and the night after it's officially 100%-lit by the sun, but the best time to watch it rise is at moonrise during dusk on Tuesday, June 10. EarthSky says June's full moon is the strawberry, flower and rose moon. Cultural and seasonal names for the full moon vary hugely across the world. A full moon always looks at its best not when it's high in the sky at night, but when it first appears above the eastern horizon during dusk. The sight is at its best when the moon rises shortly after sunset. That timing is good this month for North America, with the moon rising a few minutes after sunset. As well as being the latest at night to rise of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, June's strawberry moon is also always the lowest-hanging full moon of the year. This happens because the full moon is opposite the sun, by definition, so it mirrors the sun's position. For example, the full moon is at its lowest when the sun is at its highest. In practice, that means it never gets very high in the sky. To see the full strawberry moon at its best, find an elevated location, an open field or an east-facing coastline with a clear view of the eastern horizon. To find the best time to see it appear from where you are, consult a moonrise calculator. Here are some sample times : This year there's another reason why June's full moon is the lowest of the year — the moon's current major lunar standstill. This once-every-18.6 years period, which lasts for about a year — is caused by the tilts of the moon and Earth being at their maximum — meaning the moon rises and sets at the farthest points on its range on the horizon. In practice, the moon in June 2025 will rise farther to the southeast than at any time since 2006, stay low in the southern sky all night (about five degrees lower in the sky than the sun does on the winter solstice), and set as far to the southwest as it ever can. The strawberry moon is the sixth of 12 full moons in 2025. The solar year is 365.24 days, while our lunar year is around 354.37 days, so sometimes there are 13 full moons in one calendar (solar) year — as in 2023 and next in 2028. Of the 12 full moons in 2024, three will be 'supermoons' and two 'blood moon' total lunar eclipses (the first happened on March 13-14, and the next lunar eclipse is on Sept. 7-8). The next full moon is the buck moon, which will occur on Thursday, July 10. It will be the first full moon of the Northern Hemisphere's astronomical season of summer (and winter in the Southern Hemisphere), which begins on the date of the June solstice on Saturday, June 21, 2025.