
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


CNBC
11 hours ago
- CNBC
An energy star inside U.S. homes is under attack from Trump, with the cost to homeowners uncertain
Donald Trump, as both a citizen and president, has railed against modern dishwashers, washing machines, light bulbs, showerheads and toilets, claiming that onerous government regulations render them less effective and more expensive. Since returning to the White House in January, he's turned his ire into an edict. On April 9, Trump issued an executive order directing certain federal agencies "to incorporate a sunset provision" into a laundry list of regulations governing energy production, including those covering appliances. A month later, he issued a memorandum, entitled "Rescission of Useless Water Pressure Standards." Following that, on May 12, the Department of Energy announced that it was preparing to eliminate or modify 47 federal regulations "that are driving up costs and lowering quality of life for the American people." Many of the rules are covered in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), a decades-old law that mandates energy-efficiency and water-conservation standards for home appliances and plumbing fixtures. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency said it is planning to eliminate the Energy Star program, a popular voluntary initiative that manufacturers employ to rank their appliances based on energy conservation and cost savings, displayed on familiar blue labeling at retail as comparison-shopping guides. Trump's actions have been met with a mix of resistance from consumer protection groups and appliance manufacturers, as well as support from deregulation hawks and decriers of the nanny state. And while the administration continues to review the current standards and solicit comments before considering any official changes, legal challenges to the efforts are being weighed. Originally passed in 1975, EPCA ensures that the entire array of products covered by the law all meet a basic level of energy- and water-efficiency performance, reflected in different price points. A prime example are the ubiquitous yellow Energy Guide stickers affixed to appliances that indicate their annual energy usage and cost. "Consumers who are shopping primarily, if not exclusively, on price also get reasonable efficiency performance [information]," said Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups, utilities and state governments, based at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit research organization. Without that level of regulated consumer protection, deLaski said, "It's buyer beware." Consumers would face the risk of less-efficient appliances entering an unregulated marketplace, he said, "and you're not going to know it until you get the [higher] electric bill." Separate from EPCA, the Energy Star labeling program was established by the EPA in 1992 as a public-private partnership. Managed and jointly funded by the DOE, it sets energy-efficiency standards that manufacturers can choose to display on appliances, building products, electronics, lighting fixtures, HVAC equipment and other products as a way for consumers and businesses to make informed purchase decisions. The EPA estimates that 90% of households recognize the Energy Star label and that over its 33 years, the program has saved five trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity, reduced greenhouse gas emissions by four billion metric tons and saved $500 billion in utility costs. The program's 2024 operating budget was $35.7 million. To date, every dollar spent has resulted in nearly $350 in energy cost savings. Consumer Reports conducted a national survey in March which found that 87% of respondents support energy-efficient home appliance standards. Nearly a third said that saving money on energy bills would motivate them to buy a more efficient large home appliance. Last month, in response to plans to shutter Energy Star, the organization issued a statement urging the EPA to preserve the program. "The loss would hit especially hard at a time when people are dealing with unpredictable energy bills and trying to cut expenses," said Shanika Whitehurst, associate director for Consumer Reports' product sustainability, research and testing team. The nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan coalition of consumer, environment, business and government groups, suggests that EPCA and Energy Star actually promote the White House's goals of lowering families' energy bills and making the nation energy dominant. "If you start to dismantle the energy-efficiency programs, American households are going to pay for that," said Jason Reott, ASE's senior manager of policy. "Energy dominance begins at home, by eliminating energy waste." The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which represents more than 150 manufacturers, has historically supported efficiency regulations, but pushed back against the Biden administration's updates of EPCA standards for gas stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers and other appliances. The law requires the DOE to review standards at least once every six years, a process that has often led to rule changes. "We have always been able to produce products at higher efficiency levels," said Jill Notini, vice president of communications and marketing for AHAM, "but there's a tipping point where you have to stop and say, you have to have the technology that allows those standard levels." "We very much appreciate the intent behind [President Trump's] goals of deregulatory actions," Notini said. "Our industry needs it after looking at our products and how far they have come in terms of energy efficiency and water use," alluding to the eight rounds of EPCA reviews, updates and revisions over the years. Today's appliances are at or near their peak efficiency, a result of federal standards and manufacturers' investment in technology and innovation, Notini said. "So there needs to be a recognition that we can't stay on this path and continue to ratchet up standards and expect high-performing products," she added. AHAM favors revising EPCA standards, she said, based on technological advances rather than the every-six-year requirement. What the association does not endorse, however, is Trump's request for the DOE to waive federal preemption of states' regulations regarding the water efficiency of showerheads, faucets and toilets. "It's concerning to us that we may not have federal preemption, which creates that certainty that the industry is looking for," Notini said, noting that several states have established their own efficiency standards on some EPCA-covered products. Federal preemption "truly is what has made energy efficiency such a success." AHAM member LG Electronics USA has mixed views on efforts to roll back EPCA, according to senior vice president John I. Taylor. "Generally deregulation is good for business, but there are some specific things in EPCA that are beneficial to American consumers and the American economy," he said. "Our company has been a leader in driving energy efficiency, so regardless of how the regulations end up, we'll continue to keep our foot on that accelerator." In March, nearly three dozen industry groups and appliance companies, including the Chamber of Commerce, Bosch, Carrier and the Air-Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) sent a letter to EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, urging him not to end Energy Star. In April, the U.S. Green Building Council, along with more than 1,000 signatories — among them LG, Miele and Samsung Electronics America — wrote to Zeldin to express concerns about proposed cuts at the EPA, including Energy Star. While major appliance retailers, such as Lowe's, Home Depot and Best Buy, have not publicly commented on any of these pending regulatory changes, the National Retail Federation, one of several consumer products, manufacturing, real estate and retail organizations that sent a letter on June 6 to a bipartisan group of Congressional leaders, asking them to "strongly support continuation of the non-regulatory and non-partisan Energy Star program within the federal government." "Consumers have said overwhelmingly that they support voluntary environmental standard-setting programs like Energy Star," said Scot Case, vice president of corporate social responsibility and sustainability and executive director for the NRF's Center for Retail Sustainability. And that's why retailers the trade group represents "want to make sure they're able to share the benefits of those programs with the consumer," he said. Trump's tribulations with energy-efficiency and water-conservation standards echo those of libertarians and free-marketers who maintain that regulations often represent government overreach and restrict personal choice. For instance, the libertarian Cato Institute has called Energy Star "a very coarse piece of energy information that may crowd out efforts" to develop more accurate ways to measure energy-operating costs. "I'm a big proponent of energy efficiency, but I don't think we need the federal government overriding the choices and preferences that consumers may have when purchasing an appliance," said Nick Loris, vice president of public policy for C3 Solutions, a conservative energy think tank. He said rolling back EPCA standards is "a step forward in reducing government intervention into decisions that should be best left for producers and consumers." As with a mounting number of actions taken by the Trump administration this year — from tariffs to immigration — tinkering with EPCA is expected to be challenged in federal courts. The law includes a so-called anti-backsliding provision, which prevents rolling back standards that have already been finalized. A 2004 case deLaski referred to, NRDC v. Abraham, upheld the provision. "Once a DOE standard has been updated and published in the Federal Register, you can't go backward," he said of the precedent. The administration may seek legal authority to enact these deregulation orders by citing the "good cause" exception in the Administrative Procedures Act as a way to avoid the APA's public notice-and-comment processes. Yet legal experts, environmental groups and state attorneys general have warned that skipping APA procedures — especially for weakening energy- and water-use standards covered by EPCA — would likely be deemed "arbitrary and capricious" and illegal. Ultimately, considering the success and popularity of EPCA and Energy Star — with consumers, manufacturers and retailers — as well as the legal underpinnings, it's entirely possible that both will remain intact, if perhaps with a few tweaks. "In one form or another," Taylor said, "we expect both will." "We know consumers want the information, and the interesting thing about consumers is, they are also voters," Case said.


Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Western State Utilities Plan To Mitigate Wildfires, Others Unprepared
Flames burn near power lines in California. An arm of the U.S. Department of Energy has unveiled an online public database with 400 wildfire mitigation plans from utilities in 19 states to increase wildfire resilience at a time when some utilities may be unprepared. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has released the database as a tool for state lawmakers and regulators as well as electric utility officials to better develop ways to mitigate the destruction caused by ever-increasing wildfires and better withstand these extreme events. 'Wildfires are no longer a seasonal threat—they're a year-round, national challenge with many areas in the country experiencing a new emerging risk,' said André Coleman, PNNL chief scientist, noted in a June 10 public announcement. 'This database empowers decision-makers at every level to see the different approaches being used, understand what's working and where gaps exist, aid in new plan development, and collaborate on more effective mitigation strategies.' Based in Richland, Wash., PNNL says the public release of the Wildfire Mitigation Plans Database 'comes at a time when wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe, posing increasing threats to power infrastructure, public safety, and taxpayer dollars.' The effort was funded by DOE's Grid Deployment Office, which was founded in 2022 to fund projects that support critical power generation and make the national electricity grid more resilient. Another focus areas is to bolster electric transmission and distribution systems. 'Our vision is to share a complete archive of all publicly available utility wildfire plans to see what the extended community of wildfire stakeholders wants to know. This open data enables conversations and analysis beyond the doors of the laboratory while giving us keen insight into proposed and potential industry solutions and trends,' said Rebecca O'Neil, PNNL advisor of electricity infrastructure. 'We will continue to update the database and to offer wayfinding tools, through short topic-based analyses and a tool to search plans intelligently. Most of all, though, we want to hear from the user community what they are doing with the information and what more we can make possible.' High-voltage towers in the forest. The Grid Deployment Office released a 294-page 'National Transmission Needs Study' in October 2023. The report addressed the importance of improve wildfire reliability and resilience in the California and the western part of the United States. It noted that the Northwest and Southwest regions were at 'risk of load curtailment during extreme weather events and wildfires,' especially as those areas rely more 'on variable energy resources to meet peak demand. Additional transmission upgrades would reduce risks to electricity reliability from extreme events.' PNNL stated that U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee estimated that wildfires nationally incur annual costs ranging from $394 and $893 billion, with as much to $202 billion from electricity losses. 'On average, in the United States, wildfires caused by power utilities represent about 10% of wildfire starts, though they account for roughly 19% of the annual average national burn area,' PNNL says. States with electric utility wildfire mitigation plans in PNNL's database. Of interest in the PNNL database is the lack of wildlife mitigation plans for much of the Eastern part of the United States. The database is searchable by location, by year/range of years, and by utility or type. The state with the most wildlife mitigation plans was California (224 utility plans), followed by Oregon (87), Washington (53), Utah (19), Idaho (18) and Colorado (16). In June, Stanford University's Stanford Climate and Energy Policy Program published a 34-page report called 'Wildfire: An Updated Look at Utility Risk and Mitigation.' It was written by Eric Macomber, I. Avery Bick, Michael Wara and Michael Mastrandrea. The report underscored the dangers of wildfires ignited by electric utility infrastructure in the United States. It discussed California wildfires as well as a greater awareness there and regulatory framework regarding risks of wildfires started by electric utility infrastructure. Consequently, Western states such California, Nevada, Oregon and Utah have more developed wildfire utility mitigation plans particularly by investor-owned utilities. At the same time, the study noted that likelihood of catastrophic wildfires is much higher today in areas where it had not been a concern. 'Wildfire risk has continued to increase across North America as a result of a number of interrelated trends, the report noted. 'These include shifting weather conditions linked to climate change, which can cause fires to burn at higher intensity and spread more quickly across the landscape; historical fire suppression practices, which have caused flammable dead and dry vegetation to build up in many forested areas, increasing fire intensity; and development and land use patterns that have led vulnerable structures to be located in or near areas where fires are likely to occur, increasing the risk of catastrophic fires that spread from structure to structure and destroy entire communities.' Specifically investor-owned utilities in the Gulf Coast, Southeast and Upper Midwest mostly haven't devised such mitigation plans even though they may be located in areas great risk for wildfires. Midwestern new homes next to power lines. Stanford researchers acknowledged challenges some utilities like rural electric cooperatives and those owned by the public may face in devising wildfire mitigation plans. However electric utility officials and regulators should take measures to safeguard power supplies and minimize the likelihood of their infrastructure sparking a wildfire. For instance, deactivated transmission infrastructure could ignite a wildfire. The report suggested than 'an approach to wildfire mitigation which reduces the likelihood of electric infrastructure igniting catastrophic fires is key not only to protecting the safety of homes and communities threatened by fires, but also to the future development of the energy system. Because the costs that utilities incur as a result of both wildfire liability and infrastructure projects like mitigation plans are ultimately passed on to their customers in rates,it is important that mitigation programs are conducted in a manner that is not only practical and timely, but also efficient and cost-effective.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Analyst sends bold message on quantum computing stocks after Nvidia CEO's pivot
Analyst sends bold message on quantum computing stocks after Nvidia CEO's pivot originally appeared on TheStreet. When people talk about computing speed today, they think of Nvidia's () powerful GPUs, the gold standard for accelerating artificial intelligence. But there could be another quieter revolution gaining traction: quantum computing. 💵💰💰💵 Quantum computing's potential applications include portfolio optimization in finance and simulating complex chemical systems, tasks that today's most powerful supercomputers still struggle to solve. Still, the technology is years away from mass adoption. But Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has recently struck a more optimistic tone on quantum computing. 'Quantum computing is reaching an inflection point,' he said at a conference on June 11. Classical computers process information in bits, and each bit is either a 0 or a 1. Quantum computers use qubits (quantum bits), which can be both 0 and 1 at the same time. This allows quantum computers to process vastly more possibilities at once. Think of a regular computer as a librarian, looking through books one by one to find the answer. Quantum computers, on the other hand, can look through all the books at once. "This means quantum computing may revolutionize our ability to solve problems that are hard to address with even the largest supercomputers," the U.S. Department of Energy noted that 'we are within reach' of applying quantum computers "in areas that can solve some interesting problems in the coming years.' This is a notable shift from Huang's earlier skepticism. He had previously said that a 15-year timeline for useful quantum computing was 'on the early side,' and that a 20-year horizon was more realistic. Those remarks triggered sharp declines in shares of quantum-focused companies like Quantum Computing Inc. () , IonQ () , and D-Wave Quantum () . This week, shares of Quantum Computing Inc. lost more than 11% as the firm sold approximately 14 million shares of common stock at $14.25 per share to institutional investors. The deal was announced on June 23 and closed on June 24, bringing the firm about $200 million. The firm said it intends to use the net proceeds from the sale to accelerate commercialization efforts, to engage in strategic acquisitions, and for working capital and general corporate purposes. The stock dropped after the dilution, but one Wall Street veteran is buying more shares on that dip. Stephen Guilfoyle, Wall Street's 30-year veteran analyst, said he added positions in Quantum Computing Inc. and D-Wave Quantum this week. He also unveils bold price targets for the two stocks, according to his note published on TheStreet Pro. 'In response to the sale and the diluted share price, on Monday morning ahead of the opening bell, I had added small to my existing long position and had also re-initiated a long position in key competitor D-Wave Quantum,' Guilfoyle wrote. 'Neither firm will report for almost two months.'Guilfoyle noted that Quantum Computing Inc. has burned through more than $65 million in cash over the past three years, and its latest $200 million capital raise — done at $14.25 per share — was priced well above where the stock traded just months ago. 'Apparently, despite the cash burn, and despite the fact that the shares traded $4.37 this year, some institutional investors are willing to pay for the shares,' he wrote. He now sees a new technical pivot for QUBT at $21.80 and has raised his price target to $27, citing healthy relative strength and a bullish technical setup. "Investors will have to digest the extra shares. That said, quantum computing stocks are momentum driven and do not trade on fundamentals," he added. More Nvidia: Analysts revamp forecast for Nvidia-backed AI stock Nvidia stock could surge after surprising Taiwan Semi news Nvidia CEO sends blunt 7-word message on quantum computing As for D-Wave, Guilfoyle believes the chart looks even better. He sees a pivot at $18.30, with a target of $23 if the rally continues. Both stocks have more than tripled from their March lows. On June 26, Quantum Computing Inc. closed at $16.79, and D-Wave Quantum finished at $14.06. Analyst sends bold message on quantum computing stocks after Nvidia CEO's pivot first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 27, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 27, 2025, where it first appeared.