Richard Rusk, Engineer

@Electroversenet When it comes to Btu per pound of fuel, sunshine's weight is zero so the Btu per pound calculation says solar's energy density is infinity.

@Electroversenet All these talking points have rebuttals. The history of energy sources moves toward less effort and cost for fuel. The 21st century sources are solar and wind. Also, one rebuttal is, “Whatever, dude. New nuclear looks like vaporware to me.”

Human progress has always moved toward higher energy density. From dung, to wood, to coal, to oil and gas, and most recently to nuclear - the most concentrated energy we've ever had. Wind and solar don't continue that arc, they reverse it. These sources require vast amounts of land to deliver the same power. For one gigawatt, nuclear needs just one square mile. Solar requires roughly 75 times that. Wind uses a whopping 400 times more, making it the most land-hungry energy source on the grid. Wind is also the hardest to recycle due to the fiberglass turbine blades, meaning even more land is taken up by landfill. Nuclear isn't the problem. It's the solution.

Mark, in your calculations what is the price per kWh that I might pay for nuclear-sourced electricity at my home, or at my clients who own commercial and industrial facilities? I hear a lot about the small volume of nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. I hear a lot about uptime. I hear a lot about the small footprint. All of that is none of my concern.

Breaking: Brookfield and The Nuclear Company teaming up to deliver GW-scale nuclear Proud to announcing a joint venture between The Nuclear Company and Brookfield to deliver Westinghouse reactors, including to manage the completion of AP1000s in South Carolina. From the day I discovered nuclear energy my goal has been to build as much of it as possible for the world. Today, with my team at @thenuclearco, we're taking a huge step towards that. It's been an honor to work as Chief of Staff for proven builder-CEO @JonathanWebbKY alongside our legendary Chief Nuclear Officer @TheNuclearJoe as we build the team and technology that can finally fix the nuclear plant deployment problem in the West. I've been an advocate for nuclear energy long enough to see the revolution in public appreciation for this wondrous technology, but just being popular isn't enough. We have to be able to build on-time, on-budget, with proven designs that are repeated over and over with an experienced and disciplined project management team using the best emerging tech. That is precisely what we're doing at The Nuclear Company. I'll be sharing more going forward as we deliver on the awesome potential unlocked by today's announcement.

@GodswillChemist He has a window between two rooms. He had a parachute. He jumped into a helicopter’s rescue basket. He lived in a penthouse.

Your brain either gets this instantly… or not at all 😭🧠

This tech revolutionized complex shapes forever. Before this machine,making complex curved surfaces was slow, expensive and inaccurate.

@Electroversenet This story says asbestos was found in brake pads, not turbine blades.

Major wind turbine manufacturers have been hit by an asbestos scandal. At Australia's $4 billion Golden Plains wind farm, testing on turbines has come back positive. Units are now quarantined and the manufacturer, based in Denmark, is launching global checks across its supply chain. Serious environmental concerns are mounting. Wind blades can't be recycled, not economically or at scale. So tens of thousands of tons of blades are dumped every year, buried in pits with endless more coming as first-generation turbines hit their end of life (which is typically just 15 years). An industry sold as clean is leaving mountains of toxic waste that can't be recycled.

@RonTannert @Electroversenet Asbestos?

@Electroversenet 30k wind turbines times 3-bades each equal 90k blades...all filled with asbestos! 🤔

Texas built the largest wind fleet in America. More than 30,000 turbines, costing billions in subsidies, sold as clean, limitless energy. But in February 2021, reality hit. A historic cold outbreak froze the turbines. Power output across the state collapsed within hours. The grid buckled. Millions lost electricity. Almost 1,000 people died. And while politicians blamed gas lines and 'unexpected weather,' the data pointed to a grid that had grown dangerously dependent on wind. Texas had the capacity. But it didn't have reliability. Emergency generators fired up. Diesel. Gas Anything that worked. The promise was clean energy. The reality was blackouts, Texans freezing to death, and a grid one cold snap away from collapse.

What a pessimistic take on history. Storms routinely damage electrical grids. I lived through this storm. There have been three others with longer outages at my house. Did you hear about the outage in New Orleans in May 2025. Two nuclear plants were down at the same time. They got it fixed and life went on. Here is the last 20 years in ERCOT. All sources are welcome. The The energy along the right side shows 50% growth since 2006. It was met by increases in gas, wind, and solar. This has been going on for decades. One storm five years ago is an odd place to choose to explain the Texas experience with wind and solar.

@TheFrackingGuy Yes, actually. Both car tax and home property tax rates have been reduced the last couple years. Perhaps surprising coming from a lefty county board, but the surpluses from the data center money have been so huge that even they haven’t been able to find stuff to spend it on.

Dean, likewise I don't understand how people think Small Nuclear Reactors and fusion are solutions now. The people working on these ideas say they won't be ready for years. The land issue is real. If land can't be found then electricity won't be generated. Landowners get paid pretty well for letting wind turbines and solar arrays on their land so it could happen. Clever people are coming up with dual uses for land and calling their efforts agrivoltaics.

I have truly never understood how solar-maxis intend to deal with this reality; I expect there to be data centers 100 times this nameplate power draw in the nearish future. What you see below is 100mw. The response I usually get is "America has a lot of land," which is just bleak. Indeed, it turns *me* into a doomer, invoking as it does the notion of machines papering over our soil (which powers us) to power themselves. And it's not just data centers. In a world with electric freight trucks, a *truck stop* might require as much solar as you see pictured here, if not much more. A truck stop! Solar is fine; I do not have a principled opposition to it (which I do to eg wind). But solar's lack of energy density makes the solar-maximalist future a "loser premise," to borrow a phrase--at least it is a "loser premise" for human dignity. The good version of the future is of course a mix of many energy sources, but with a heavy bent toward fusion/fission and geothermal.

It was an untested size of plant. There were lessons learned. Since solar PV has taken over the solar market we may never make much use of the lessons learned. You know what is undergoing scale-up right now? Fusion and Small Nuclear Reactors. I think we should be ready to find out the first ones don't work as projected and have bugs to be worked out.

@RichardRusk007 @OwenGregorian I have no doubt that it doesn't work very well, as it's a government boondoggle. But I can't believe it's not positive cash flow. Is there some rule that they can only sell their electricity at an exorbitant price?

Obama-backed $2.2B green energy 'boondoggle' leaves taxpayers on the hook | Michael Dorgan, Fox News Federal taxpayers helped build a $2.2 billion solar plant — now electricity customers are on the hook to keep it running. The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant, a sprawling facility near the California-Nevada border built with billions in federal support during the Obama-era economic stimulus program, is stuck in a costly dilemma. Both the Trump and Biden administrations — along with the utility company that buys its power — have sought to shut it down, saying it underperforms, produces expensive electricity and has been overtaken by cheaper energy sources. But California regulators have refused to allow it to close, warning that closing the plant could strain the power grid. The result is a costly standoff rooted in years of government decisions: shutting it down could leave taxpayers responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars tied to a $1.6 billion federal loan, while keeping it open means higher electricity costs for consumers. "This project makes no economic sense to keep afloat, and the market itself has shown that," Daniel Turner, founder of the energy advocacy group Power The Future, told Fox News Digital. "This is a boondoggle, like most of California's large projects are a boondoggle," he said, arguing it is being kept alive for political reasons, with costs ultimately passed on to customers. "At some point, you have to stop throwing good money after bad," he added. Rising out of the Mojave Desert, the more than 4,000-acre facility still looks like the future. It has roughly 350,000 mirrors — mounted on more than 170,000 heliostats — which stretch for miles and reflect blinding sunlight into three towering structures that glow eerily white against the barren terrain. But more than a decade after it opened, the technology behind it has been overtaken by cheaper, more efficient solar alternatives — turning what was once a symbol of clean energy progress into a costly problem. The project has also faced scrutiny over its environmental impact, with thousands of birds killed after flying through the plant’s concentrated solar beams — along with the destruction of large areas of desert land and displacement of desert tortoises. The costly tradeoff Roughly $730 million to $780 million of the $1.6 billion federally backed loan tied to the project remains outstanding, according to federal data. In addition, the U.S. Department of the Treasury provided a $539 million grant to help build the facility, covering about 30% of construction costs. At the same time, some analysts estimate the plant’s electricity could cost customers roughly $100 million more per year than power from newer solar alternatives. That leaves policymakers facing a stark choice: shut it down and risk sticking taxpayers with hundreds of millions in losses tied to the loan, or keep it running and continue passing higher costs on to electricity customers. Critics argue that without government backing and long-term contracts, the plant would likely struggle to remain economically viable. Even the federal government and the utility paying for the power have tried to walk away. Officials under both the Trump and Biden administrations, along with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) — which buys electricity from the plant — have supported shutting it down. PG&E has described the contracts as part of an effort to reduce "uneconomic resources" in its energy portfolio, according to regulatory filings. California regulators, however, have refused. The California Public Utilities Commission rejected efforts to terminate the plant’s contracts, citing concerns about grid reliability as electricity demand rises, including increased demand from data centers. In its decision, regulators warned that shutting down Ivanpah could strand more than $300 million in ratepayer-funded transmission and infrastructure tied to the project, while also creating potential risks for grid reliability — particularly as uncertainty grows around how quickly new energy projects can be built. PG&E, meanwhile, has argued that terminating the contracts would save customers money compared with continuing to purchase electricity from the facility. The dispute highlights a broader challenge facing the energy sector — how to balance reliability, cost and past investments as demand rises and technology evolves. Outdated technology, shifting market Standing near the site, the scale of the project is unmistakable. The plant uses a technology known as concentrated solar power, in which computer-controlled mirrors reflect sunlight onto boilers atop nearly 460-foot towers, creating visible beams of concentrated light and causing the structures to glow brightly. The heat is then used to produce steam, which drives turbines to generate electricity. When it opened in 2014, the technology was considered cutting-edge. However, rapid advances in photovoltaic solar panels and battery storage have since made cheaper, more flexible alternatives widely available. The project was fast-tracked during the Obama-era stimulus push, prompting concerns about the speed of its environmental review. It was part of a broader federal effort to boost the economy following the 2008 financial crisis and expand renewable energy. It represented a significant scale-up of relatively new technology, expanding from smaller pilot projects to a nearly 400-megawatt facility — a leap that introduced uncertainties about long-term performance. But the industry moved on faster than expected. Cheaper and more efficient photovoltaic solar panels, often paired with battery storage, quickly overtook the concentrated solar technology used at Ivanpah — leaving the plant at a competitive disadvantage. "The technology used at Ivanpah is no longer really competitive with a new solar farm that uses conventional solar panels," Severin Borenstein, an energy economist at the University of California, Berkeley, told Fox News Digital. Borenstein said the project reflects the risks of investing in emerging energy technologies at scale. "When this plant was planned, solar thermal looked like a promising approach," he said. "But photovoltaic costs fell much faster than anyone anticipated, and that changed the economics entirely." Borenstein explained the project was part of a broader wave of experimentation in early clean energy development, noting that while some technologies — including solar panels, batteries and wind power — became dramatically cheaper over time, Ivanpah "fell into the latter category," with costs failing to drop as expected. "That doesn’t mean it was a bad idea to build it originally," he said. Borenstein added that once those shifts occur, large infrastructure projects can be difficult to unwind. "These are long-lived assets with long-term contracts," he said. "Even if they no longer make economic sense, you can’t easily just walk away." Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University energy systems expert, contended the technology itself is not inherently flawed but lacks key features used in newer systems. "There’s no role for a concentrated solar plant without storage," Jacobson told Fox News Digital, noting that modern systems typically store energy for use at night — something Ivanpah cannot do. Jacobson added that while the plant may no longer be competitive with new projects, that does not necessarily mean it should be shut down. "It’s already built," he said. "So the question is whether it’s cheaper to keep it running than to replace it." In addition to the $1.6 billion federal loan guarantee, the project received a roughly $539 million Treasury grant covering about 30% of construction costs, along with tax credits, accelerated depreciation and other federal incentives. California’s renewable energy mandates also required utilities to purchase power under long-term contracts, helping ensure demand even as newer technologies emerged. Ivanpah is not the first federally backed clean energy project to face scrutiny. Solar company Solyndra collapsed in 2011 after receiving $535 million in federal loan guarantees. The Ivanpah project drew backing from major private investors, including NRG Energy and Google, which invested hundreds of millions of dollars in its development. But the project’s financing structure spreads risk unevenly. Federal loan guarantees, taxpayer-funded grants and long-term power contracts help stabilize returns for investors, while leaving taxpayers and electricity customers exposed to potential losses and higher costs. Operational challenges have also been documented. A 2025 audit by California regulators identified recurring forced outages and equipment issues that could affect reliability. NRG Energy, which operates the facility, told Fox News Digital it remains committed to running the plant under existing agreements and providing renewable energy to California. Although Ivanpah has a nameplate capacity of nearly 400 megawatts, solar plants typically operate below full capacity because they only generate electricity when the sun is shining. Even so, the facility has underperformed. In 2023, it operated at roughly a 17% capacity factor, according to data from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — well below the 25% to 30% levels originally expected. Real-world impact While the facility spans thousands of acres in a remote stretch of desert, it feeds electricity into the broader grid rather than a specific community and has drawn relatively limited public attention despite its scale and cost. The town of Baker, for example, is the nearest town to the facility on the California side, but it is about 50 miles away from the plant. For some residents and business owners in the region, however, rising electricity prices remain a growing concern. "During the summer it can be anywhere from $10,000 to $12,000 … in the winter anywhere from $6,000 to $8,000," said Lazarus Dabour, owner of the Mad Greek restaurant in Baker. "It still restricts your bottom line when your overhead from more electricity goes up. It’s a big factor," he said. "Our electricity is too high here in Baker," said Eddie Bravo, a local store worker who said his bills can reach between $650 and $750 in the summer. He said he notices the plant when he travels to Las Vegas, but "[doesn't] know much about it." Despite the scale of the project, many people passing through the area said they were largely unaware of the facility or the controversy surrounding it. Some expressed frustration with rising energy costs, while others took a more neutral view. "It seems like it’s doing its job … it’s definitely working," said Gregory Simons, a truck driver from Rancho Cucamonga who was stopped at a gas station near the Nevada state line. Just across the road, newer solar facilities sit quietly on the desert floor, using photovoltaic panels to generate electricity more simply and at lower cost — highlighting how quickly the industry has shifted away from Ivanpah’s technology. More than a decade after it opened, the plant now stands as a symbol of how quickly energy technology can evolve — and the cost of getting it wrong when a project becomes too expensive to shut down and too costly to justify keeping it running. foxnews.com/us/13-obama-ba…

Building a solar array is a simple construction project.

Wind turbines need backup burning 90% of the time. I agree. That is how they work. They are used in a multi-source grid. They save hydrocarbon fuel and keep water behind hydropower dams. I think that is a good thing. Here is today in ERCOT. The top two colors are solar and wind.

This was a very interesting to this project development engineer. Making the technical issues and the financing issues work together is a special skill. When I was successful in getting a project approved I was one team member working with several talented people. We all had our own expertise. My projects have been far smaller but I recognized some of the issues in attitude and company culture that were at work in my projects. I loved hearing the history.

Oh boy... looking forward to watching this! @mysuncast @JigarShahDC and Ahmad Chatilla. Solar OGs! youtu.be/vxc00M-fp6w?si…

Do you know what a substation looks like? Blow this picture up and take a look for yourself. There is no building for any purpose on this site. Which reinforces something I say about the simplicity of solar generation sites like this. They are simple to build. There are racks not too high, solar panels, inverters, and a connection to the grid. There is no building to be built, and not even a parking lot. It is operated remotely with sensors, controls, and cell or internet communications we have not had for very long.

Gary, you can hire me to do research or you can do it yourself. This technology is now an inferior way of using photons to make electricity. It is extremely complicated with many moving parts including solar trackers and stepper motors on every mirror. The working fluid is kept at an extremely high temperature, which requires special metals. Like all thermal processes used to generate electricity there was waste heat and cooling towers. This adds up to lots of equipment that must all be in working order. If each piece has a need for even one preventive maintenance visit per year to oil something, adjust something, or just see that it is in working order that creates a lot of maintenance tickets per year. Nevada Power declined to renew its contract to buy its power. PG&E declined to buy its power. For a while it was closed and was not cash flow positive then for sure. It is a business failure. I drove by it when the towers were glowing white hot, and again later when the plant was down and the towers were black. It is close to an interstate highway. The transition to photovoltaics with no moving parts happened about 2020. This is the Edsel of solar plants. It works, kind of, but no one cares.

@RichardRusk007 @OwenGregorian The capital loans will have to be paid off, anyway. How much natural gas? What's the maintenance? I really doubt that this facility is not cashflow positive (excluding whatever debt). It shouldn't be scrapped.

Isaac, I state subsidies to nuclear power and the oil industry because I get it thrown in my face with a snotty tone that solar and wind only exist as a business because of subsidies. They exist because clever people invented them and they work. I had one guy dispute that the depletion allowance and the accelerated depreciation in the oil business, earmarked for the oil business, are any different from the depreciation rules for other businesses. He disputed that the oil business is the recipient of military protection paid by taxpayers, not paid by oil companies. No one I have traded comments with has ever acknowledged that there is an earmarked income tax credit for existing nuclear plants named the Nuclear Power Production Credit of IRS Form 7213. I point it out, include the form and get no response - just dead air. There are limits stated on the form and in the instruction booklet but it is the hundred of millions of dollars. “If solar is so great why doe it need subsidies,” is the comment I get. Why does existing nuclear need an income tax credit from all taxpayers along with the income stream from their customers for services delivered? Here is the first page of the form. I did not make this up.

@RichardRusk007 If you’re mad about nuclear operators not paying income taxes thanks to recent tax credits you’re a have lots to say about the amount of taxes paid by works and solar project owners

What we call renewables, solar and wind, depend on nature. Fossil fuel-sourced electricity depends on delivery of fuel. Nuclear depends on delivery of fuel pellets. These have all been used successfully together every day for over 20 years. How? In multi-source grids with modern power electronics, communications, and controls. These tools allow ERCOT to manage 1400 generators. Below is one day in ERCOT, one of 7000 daily success stories. New natural gas generators are being encouraged with low-cost loans from the Texas Energy Fund. New nuclear is encouraged with Executive Orders and grants. Deep-well geothermal is moving along, mostly funded by investors. Come join the party! The more the merrier.

I stand corrected. The CPUC is forcing PG&E to buy its power. If you wonder why electricity prices are high in California, note how decisions on costs are made. The CPUC makes many decisions on capital spending and business operations. Investors get a guaranteed return on investment. I may be one of the investors since I own a few shares of a ETF made up of utility company stocks. Thanks, CPUC!

I think Ivanpah is closed. Neither of the two utilities who could take its power were willing to pay the asking price for its output. It produced electricity but was a business failure. Good physics is not enough for good business. (I have the same concern about new nuclear. I think its power will cost the generators more to produce than is cost-effective to pay for capital expenses, operating expenses, and a return for investors.). I have looked into the use solar thermal processes. The one at Ivanpah needed a natural gas input to keep its working fluid always hot. Some plants elsewhere in the world are still in use. The last ones I could find opened a little before 2020. It was about 2020 when the price of solar photovoltaic panels made utility solar farms cost-effective and rapid growth got underway. No solar thermal plants have opened since; it is now an outmoded technology.

@GaryLyndonDye @OwenGregorian It uses natural gas, too. I doubt the capital loans are paid. It is complicated and takes maintenance.

What is this "cost" that's causing this facility to be unprofitable? Wiping down the mirrors every once-in-a-while? Changing out the water (steam)? The capital is already spent, so don't include that. Seems to me that, instead of tearing this down and putting up a photovoltaic facility, you leave it in place and build the photovoltaics elsewhere. We need to get away from government economics, that's for sure.