The Solar Cup is a team-based educational competition that allows students to apply their skills in math, physics, engineering and communications, while learning about Southern California’s water sources, resource management, conservation and alternative energy development.

image via Metropolitan Water District of Southern California

The weekend-long event will kick off with qualifying events and technical inspections to ensure boats meet rules and are safe and seaworthy. On Day 2, single-seat, solar-powered 16-foot boats outfitted with solar panels will compete in endurance races around a 1.6-kilometer course. On the final day, teams will participate in 200-meter sprint races—in which the solar panels are removed and the boats are powered by solar energy stored in batteries.

“While each team competes under the same set of program rules, the students are able to develop their own research and development approaches and timeline. This encourages innovation, organization and team-building,” Solar Cup coordinator Julie Miller, a state-certified teacher in Metropolitan’s education programs, said in a statement. “In addition, Solar Cup provides students with hands-on, real-world applications to solving today’s challenges in water, energy and in other green technologies like solar power.”

Want to see the boats up close? The races are easily visible from the shore at the event, which is open to the public from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. with free admission and parking. Lake Skinner is at 37701 Warren Road in the Temecula Valley community of Winchester in southwest Riverside County—about 10 miles northeast of the Rancho California Road exit off Interstate 15.

The era of the steam car came to an end thanks to the adoption of the electric starter, which eliminated the need for risky hand cranking to start gasoline-powered cars. The introduction of assembly-line mass production by Henry Ford, which hugely reduced the cost of owning a conventional automobile, also played a role in the steam car’s demise as the Model T was both cheap and reliable.

image via Cyclone Power Technologies

Steam cars never went entirely extinct, however, and models have popped up here and there with companies such as Saab, Pelland and Enginion toying with steam car concepts.

Now, Cyclone Power Technologies, a developer of a modern, efficient steam engine is attempting to once again raise the profile of steam power. The company issued a press release saying they’re in the process of attempting to break the land speed record for a steam powered car. To accomplish this goal, they’ve joined forces with Bonneville champions George Poteet and Ronald Main and will use a car design based on their state-of-the-art streamliner Speed Demon, which has hit 462 mph on the salt flats.

The Cyclone team has a bit more modest speed in its sights. The current steam-powered world record is 148 mph set by a British team in 2009. The Cyclone vehicle will be powered by an advanced Cyclone Engine which, the company says, can one day be placed in modern clean-emission, all-fuel production cars and trucks.

The Cyclone engine is an all-fuel, clean-tech external combustion engine designed to achieve high thermal efficiencies through a compact heat-regenerative process, and to run on virtually any fuel — including bio-diesels, syngas or solar — while minimizing the release of greenhouse gases.

Editor’s Note: EarthTechling is proud to repost this article courtesy of Center for American Progress. Author credit goes to Melanie Hart and Kate Gordon.

Tomorrow the U.S. Department of Commerce will announce its preliminary ruling on an “anti-dumping” petition filed by SolarWorld Industries America, Inc. against Chinese solar panel manufacturers. SolarWorld claims the Chinese government is providing subsidies to Chinese solar manufacturers that would be illegal under World Trade Organization rules, thereby artificially lowering the price of these panels, and then dumping the cheap panels on the U.S. market. SolarWorld petitioned the Commerce Department to levy two different types of trade remedies: countervailing duties (to offset the subsidies) and tariffs (to discourage dumping).

The Commerce Department in March unveiled its remedy for the countervailing duties, also known as subsidy tariffs. Those tariffs were relatively low, ranging from 2.9 percent to 4.73 percent, which is less than most sales taxes around the United States. Chinesemanufacturers breathed a collective sigh of relief after that first announcement, but they are now gearing up for the next round of tariffs, which many industry analysts expect to be much higher.

image via Shutterstock

They may well be right. The countervailing duty decision required Commerce Department investigators to track down specific evidence of Chinese government subsidies—a difficult task given China’s nonmarket, nontransparent policy environment—but the antidumping calculations simply compare Chinese panel prices in the U.S. market with panel production costs in a surrogate market economy, like Thailand or India. This type of comparison generally results in a higher tariff.

The specifics of this case speak most directly to the U.S. solar industry, of course, but also to trade enforcement in general and the U.S. economy more broadly. In this column we will examine the five most common arguments we’ve heard from the antitariff contingent in the U.S. solar industry, and why we think these arguments don’t hold water—drawing larger lessons about the key role of trade enforcement to the health of U.S. companies and our economy.

The bitterly divided U.S. solar industry

First, we need to explain why this case has sparked such a huge debate within the U.S. solar industry. On one side of the debate are solar installation companies and project developers for whom low solar panel prices mean lower project development costs overall.  On the other side are U.S.-based solar manufacturers who compete directly with Chinese imports. They claim that artificially suppressed Chinese manufacturing prices are making it impossible for other solar panel manufacturing companies to survive.

There is actually a third group of companies that is equally concerned about this case but generally less vocal. These are the companies that sell solar manufacturing equipment and other upstream products, such as polysilicon, to China. Those companies generally side with the installers in opposing tariffs, not because they do not believe there is wrongdoing on the Chinese side but because they are afraid tariffs might trigger retaliatory action from China that would most likely target them.

The companies on the various sides of this debate all have their own interests at stake and their opinions on the case are driven by their individual desires to protect their bottom lines. That is very understandable. That is what our market system incentivizes—pursue your own interests to maximize profits.

But some of these companies have used more theoretical arguments to support their position against the trade case, focusing on the larger issue of whether this trade petition—and trade enforcement in general—is or is not good for the U.S. solar industry and for the U.S. economy as a whole. So let’s turn now to those claims and the underlying realities.

Myth

Trade enforcement is a losing proposition because imposing tariffs will slow solar industry growth in the United States

Reality

Innovation and demand-side policy, not cheap imports, are the real keys for solid and sustainable solar growth in the United States

Solar cell and module prices have declined rapidly in recent years—falling by 50 percent in 2011 alone—and Chinese manufacturing has been a major contributor to the price decline. Solar installation companies and other tariff opponents argue that the only way to reach grid parity with fossil fuels is to keep solar energy prices low, while the only way to keep prices low is to keep those low-cost Chinese imports coming. Never mind what the Chinese government may or may not be doing to generate those prices. And never mind whether those activities do or do not violate international trade rules.

This antitariff argument assumes that if import tariffs raise the price of Chinese-manufactured panels in the U.S. market, U.S. consumers would no longer have access to cut-rate panels, and the lack of Chinese pricing competition would reduce the declining price trajectory in the U.S. market more broadly. Higher U.S. market prices would then, in theory, make solar projects less attractive to investors, thus slowing industry growth. Alternatively, if cheap Chinese panels keep coming into the United States, the theory is that prices overall will continue to go down, ultimately leading to more domestic solar installations.

But this theory doesn’t comport with the basic realities of international trade. In fact, if the Chinese government—or any other foreign government—is indeed engaging in “dumping” by using WTO-illegal methods to reduce export prices and drive foreign firms out of the market, the end result of those practices will be Chinese market dominance. If that dominance is due to natural market forces, it is not necessarily a bad thing. But if it is due to state subsidies, that is problematic, because that would mean state officials in China are determining which companies and technologies dominate this critical global market, and those officials may not choose well.

Competing with entrenched fossil fuels will require more than cheap imports. It will require the absolute best technology the world can make. The way to get that technology is by giving all clean-tech firms strong market incentives and to allow the market, not state bureaucrats, to select the winners. To do that, we have to keep the global manufacturing market vibrant and diverse. That means not allowing Chinese subsidization to determine which firms and which technologies come out on top.

The other effect of a government-created Chinese monopoly on solar panels is that once Chinese companies drive out their competition from the solar manufacturing sector, they will immediately start raising prices to increase their profits and start to wean off of government subsidies. We are currently seeing a similar pricing pattern in the global rare earths market. China has around one-third of the world’s rare earth supplies but controls 90 percent of the global market, primarily because lax regulatory oversight enabled Chinese companies to mine cheaply and price everyone else out of the market.

Now the Chinese government is restricting exports and raising prices, triggering panic among rare earth consumers who are now almost completely dependent on China for a major commodity, so when Chinese prices rise consumers have no alternative but to pay more. This is exactly what antidumping legislation is designed to prevent—not low prices, but the eventual price fixing. Low prices can be bad for some sectors of the industry, but they are always good for consumers. The eventual price fixing, however, hurts everyone.

Finally, the fact is that whether or not China is violating trade rules, low-priced imported panels are not the only factor driving U.S. market growth. Demand-side policies are just as important. Panel prices are already low enough to stimulate market interest. Tariffs will not change that. Even before the 2011 price plunge, the U.S. solar market was expanding, and it is unlikely that tariffs will bring panels back up to 2010 prices. If you look within the U.S. market, there is a huge amount of variation from state to state, and that variation is primarily due to differences in state incentives.

Even when prices are held constant, strong policy incentives—such as renewable energy standards, feed-in tariffs (which require utilities to buy renewable power and integrate it into the grid at a set price), and rebates or tax credits for installation of solar panels—result in more solar investment. In the third quarter of 2011 the seven states with the strongest demand-side policies accounted for 89 percent of the U.S. market. What the other states are lacking is not cheap Chinese solar panels—the entire U.S. market has access to those—it is good demand-side policies. That is the real key to U.S. market success.

Researchers at the University of Turku predict that dye-sensitized solar cells (DSCs) are set to become a ubiquitous source of energy. Research into such cells began in the 1990s. Now these Finn scientists say that the DCSs, which are inexpensive to produce compared to the complex and expensive clean-room manufacturing processes associated with current silicon-based solar panels, could help make solar power more accessible by driving down costs.

image via Dyesol

Solar energy developers have been looking for new ways to make photovoltaic cells (PV) for some years, mainly because of the high volumes of silicon needed to produce these first generation of solar energy capture devices. Research has ushered in second generation of solar cells made from multi-crystalline silicon, amorphous silicon, cadmium-telluride, and copper-indium-gallium-selenide.

The DSCs belong to the third generation. They are made from titanium oxide, a naturally occurring oxide. Used in various applications, such as pigments, the compound has also been applied as a photocatalyst and is widely used in semiconductors.

In the DSCs the oxide appears in the form of a white pigment. The pigment absorbs energy from the suns rays, which sucks electrons from dye molecules into a layer beneath the top coating. This movement of electrons creates a flow which produces an electrical current.

As well as their low cost, the DSCs have an extra advantage as a method of solar capture, which is that they can be applied to unconventional surfaces. Professor Michael Grätzel, who received the 2012 Albert Einstein World Award of Science for his work in developing the technology, has invented a method by which DSCs can be applied to surfaces as a coating of colored paint.

Editor’s Note: EarthTechling is proud to repost this article courtesy of ecoRI News. Author credit goes to Kyle Hence.

With the warmer weather, Aquidneck Island, Rhode Island is buzzing over the return of the America’s Cup in June and the Tall Ships in July. While both happenings will likely make for a busier summer, an international sailing event new to the City-by-the-Sea, aka Newport, is scheduled for May 26-27, and it’s all part of a movement to make these types of events more environmentally friendly.

The 2012 Atlantic Cup will be the first carbon-neutral sailing race in the country. This unique event is presented by 11th Hour Racing and supported by the Green Mountain Energy Co. An international fleet of 13 competitors with teams from France, England, the United States and Germany began the first of three legs May 11 from Charleston, S.C. The fleet of Class 40 sailing vessels will race to New York Harbor (May 14-19) before continuing on to Newport.

image via Shutterstock

Two local organizations, for-profit Newport Biodiesel and nonprofit Sailors for the Sea, are partners in making the event amongst the most environmentally responsible of its kind. Newport Biodiesel is providing a biofuel made from recycled cooking oil for use in the auxiliary engines on Atlantic Cup race boats. The growing local “green” fuel company also is in discussions with America’s Cup organizers.

Sailors for the Sea is the only ocean conservation nonprofit focused on the sailing and boating community in the worldwide protection of the oceans. Its signature program, Clean Regattas, has certified The Atlantic Cup as a Gold Level Clean Regatta. Sailors for the Sea also is a partner in the America’s Cup Healthy Ocean Project and is certifying the America’s Cup World Series event to be based at Fort Adams from June 26-July 1.

“With Rhode Island being the Ocean State there is a love and appreciation for the ocean. Whether you are playing by the shore, on the water, it’s such a regular part of the lives of Rhode Islanders,” said Hilary Wiech of Sailors for the Sea.

In fact, the greening of sailing events is happening across the globe, she said. This movement, Wiech said, is helping to counter the naive belief that the ocean is so vast it can continue to absorb toxic waste.

These Newport events follow a vote by the City Council in March approving a resolution (pdf) authorizing the Newport Energy and Environment Commission to conduct a study to explore a “sustainability protocol” for all local events. The vision of the city’s representatives is to make the busy tourist season more environmentally friendly.

Calculating carbon
The 2012 Atlantic Cup carbon footprint will be calculated prior to the race start by Green Mountain. Based on these calculations and a post-race assessment, carbon offsets and renewable energy certificates (RECs) will be retired in order to offset emissions associated with the event, such as staff air travel, ground and water transportation, staff hotel stays and event electricity usage.

“As sailors, we are all intimately involved with the oceans and environment and it is our goal as organizers of a major U.S. sailing event to set forth a good example to the wider sailing community in the hopes that more events will follow in our footsteps,” said Hugh Piggin, Manuka Sports Event Management founder and Atlantic Cup race director.

“The Atlantic Cup represents the model for sailing events to come — focusing on the adventure and skill of the sailors and their interaction with the waters they sail in, and making smart choices for the oceans that are smart on the race course,” said Jeremy Pochman, director of 11th Hour Racing.

The Atlantic Cup’s “green” commitments include: teams will use at least one alternative fuel source to charge batteries to power all the on-board electronics while offshore; the race is a plastic water bottle-free event; teams will use only environmentally friendly cleaning products to wash down and clean their boats; 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper has/and will be used in the Manuka Sports Event Management offices and for all event packets, tickets and handouts; Zip 2 Water will provide an onsite water filling station in each city for teams and guests to fill their canteens; recycling stations will be set up in all marinas and at all hospitality parties; and only glassware or biodegradable plastic will be used at hospitality events.

Competition schedule
• May 11: Departed Charleston, S.C., for double-handed (two people on board) 645 nautical miles from Charleston to New York Harbor, New York around the challenging Cape Hatteras.
• May 18: Compete in a one-day Pro-Am race in New York Harbor.
• May 19: Depart New York Harbor with double-handed 260 nautical miles from New York to Newport.
• May 26: Two days inshore fully crewed (six people on board) buoy racing held over the weekend of May 26 in Newport.
• May 27: Party and award presentation at Newport Shipyard.

According to the EPA, various initiatives to conserve power, reduce carbon emissions, and consume more renewable energy, led it to place McDonald’s at number 11 on the list of 50 companies. Ironically, the EPA itself only managed to earn 18th place on the list.

Image via McDonald's

The EPA reports that McDonald’s earned this recognition for its commitment to match 30 percent of its electricity use at company-owned restaurants in 2011 and 2012 with renewable energy certificates from U.S. wind sources. This means that while McDonald’s is still consuming copious amount of energy, it’s using some of its massive profit to support American wind farms, offsetting some of that consumption.

Intel, Kohl’s Department Stores, and the Microsoft Corporation were the top three companies on the list. Although major corporations dominated the upper tiers of the ranking, with significant consumption of biomass, geothermal, and small-hydro power as well as solar and wind energy.

Combined, the Top 50 members of the EPA’s Green Power Partnership use more than 15 billion kilowatt-hours of green power annually. Through their use of renewable energy, these organizations are avoiding carbon pollution equal to that created by electricity use of more than 1.3 million American homes each year. Although bigger companies dominate the list, the EPA is quick to point out that it works with more than 1,300 partner organizations, over half of which are small businesses and nonprofit organizations, to voluntarily use green power.

Editor’s Note: EarthTechling is proud to repost this article courtesy of Natural Resources Defense Council. Author credit goes to Sierra Martinez.

To develop a sustainable and healthy economy, California policy requires utilities to rely on clean energy resources whenever it is cost-effective and before turning to the dirtier options.  The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recently finalized its plans to implement this policy—and the results show that, with the right policies, we can build a clean energy economy.

Every two years, the Public Utilities Commission assesses demand for power over the coming decade and the utilities’ proposals to meet that demand.  The PUC first analyzes how much energy California is expected to use, and then analyzes how many, and what types of resources—including energy efficiency, demand response, renewable energy, and conventional power plants—to rely on to meet the state’s energy needs.  The PUC recently issued its final ruling, which shows that California’s plans for a clean energy future are viable, bringing clean energy resources online while phasing out the dirty options that harm our environment and pollute our air.

image via Shutterstock

Specifically, the Commission will keep the state on a clean energy path with these five results:

1. We are relying on energy efficiency to avoid the need for 11 giant power plants over the next decade.
2. We will get 33% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020.
3. Dirty power plants that use up too much of our water will be phased out.
4. The utilities will participate in the state’s carbon market to help the state reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals.
5. The utilities are not currently authorized to build or buy power from any new fossil-fueled power plants.

This ruling enforced the “loading order” of resources (which makes energy efficiency the state’s top priority) by including robust forecasts of energy efficiency savings.  California plans to achieve a tremendous amount of efficiency in the next decade, over 5,500 MW in total.  Without this energy efficiency, we would need 11 additional giant power plants, as I discussed here.  With all the increase in efficiency and renewable energy that is in the works, the Commission found no need for any new fossil-fueled power plants right now.  By relying on efficiency and renewables, instead of traditional dirty power plants, this decision keeps us on track toward a clean energy future.

The Commission analyzed various ways for California to meet its goal of getting 33% of our energy from renewable resources.  In some cases, we would build a little more solar, in other cases, a little more wind, but the overall analysis showed a consistent result: We need about the same amount of resources to balance a grid that has 33% renewable energy as we do to balance a grid that just added conventional gas-fired power plants.  Some parties have argued that the amount of variability in renewable energy is greater than the amount of variability in conventional generation, and that consequently we would need more resources to balance a grid with a lot of renewables instead of a lot of conventional generation.  However, the amount of flexible resources needed to balance our electric grid is about the same in both cases. [1]

In order to protect our water resources, we must phase out the power plants that use excessive amounts of our water, which harm ecosystems around those plants, (and the economies that depend on those vital ecosystems).  The State Water Board has adopted deadlines for these power plants to either use less water or to get phased out, as my colleague Noah Long discussed here.  This CPUC decision reinforces the Water Board’s deadlines to fix these dirty power plants by prohibiting the utilities from buying any energy from these plants beyond the deadlines.  This moves us one step closer to phasing out these water-hogging gas-fired power plants.

Last, the decision will help the state meet our climate goals by facilitating the utilities’ participation in the GHG reduction market.  California has rolled out the first-in-the-nation GHG reduction plan that applies to the whole economy. To meet our climate goals in 2020, we must reduce our GHG emissions back to 1990 levels.  As part of this climate plan, utilities will need to reduce their emissions by helping customers use energy more efficiently, supporting renewable energy, investing in cleaner power plants, and participating in a carbon market to cut emissions even more.  This decision lays out the rules for how the utilities will participate in the carbon market.

Over the past decade, California has been developing a clean energy economy by passing climate change legislation and establishing priorities for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and cleaner power plants.  This CPUC decision implements those goals: by reducing our reliance on dirty power plants that harm our health, and by reinforcing our ability to depend on clean energy resources that save customers money and clean our air.

[1] Requirements for some types of ancillary services, like spinning and non-spinning reserves, are actually higher in the case where we build out conventional generation instead of renewables (about 100 MW), while other types, like load following up and regulation up, are slightly lower (about 400 MW).  In either case, the difference is small.  E3, Contextualizing Need in Step 2 of the CAISO’s LTPP Analysis, slides 11-12 (February 2012). http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Presentation_E3_CAISO_Step2NeedAnalysis_Feb10_2012.pdf

Gamesa said it expects to begin installation of the G128-5.0 megawatt (MW) offshore platform at Arinaga Quay at the end of 2013 or in early 2014. The company is awaiting permits for the establishment of an offshore wind farm; the prototype will be the first of its kind to be installed in Spain.

image via Gamesa

So what soured the company on Virginia after all the high hopes? The company said “the prospects for the U.S. offshore market and its regulatory conditions in this segment so far do not justify the next step, the installation of a prototype in the U.S.” The U.S. has lagged in offshore wind, despite efforts by the Obama administration to pick up the pace, and the pending expiration of the production tax credit for wind power clearly isn’t helping matters.

Gamesa was working with Newport News Shipping on the offshore turbine at the Offshore Wind Technology Center in Virginia. Production there will wind down by the end of the year as the design of the G11X-5.0 MW offshore platform is completed.

Gamesa said it is committed to developing offshore wind projects in key markets including the U.K., Germany, France and China. The company said it will continue to monitor the U.S. offshore market as it considers how best to participate in future projects. On May 10, Gamesa announced that market complexities and new product launches increased sales but margins were compressed, and the company has a net loss of 21 million Euros. Gamesa expects the profitability of the wind turbine group to recover, especially in the second half of this year.

Editor’s Note: EarthTechling is proud to repost this article courtesy of National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Author credit goes to Bill Scanlon.

The question of which energy technologies generate the most greenhouse-gas emissions — cradle to grave — now has a more precise answer, thanks to a meta-analysis of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies done by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

The new, robust analysis weighed the emissions estimates per kilowatt-hour from raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, operation, and decommissioning to get the best apples-to-apples comparisons. Sure, during operation solar panels release virtually no emissions, versus the tons of greenhouse gas produced by a large coal plant. But what about the emissions generated from the manufacture of solar panels versus, say, the turbines required for coal- and wind-based energy?

image via Shutterstock

NREL’s LCA Harmonization Project gives decision-makers and investors more exact estimates of greenhouse-gas emissions for renewable and conventional generation, clarifying inconsistent and conflicting estimates in the published literature and reducing uncertainty.

The analysis found that from cradle to grave, coal-fired energy releases about 20 times as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere per kilowatt-hour as solar energy. Wind and nuclear energy are on relative par with solar energy. Natural gas generation wasn’t included in the final analysis but is generally assumed to emit about half as much greenhouse gas per kilowatt-hour as coal.

What’s more, the “study of studies” narrowed the huge ranges of estimates sometimes as much as 90 percent, presenting a more reliable look at the likely greenhouse-gas emissions from different technologies.

Decision-Makers Need Environmental Costs Before Giving Go-Ahead

Lifetime greenhouse-gas emissions are an increasing concern for lawmakers and investors who must weigh the merits of a new coal-fired plant versus, say, a wind farm, and need to know not just the relative dollar costs but also the potential harm or benefits to the environment.

Until recently, emissions estimates ranged wildly, sometimes because vested interests had a stake in demonstrating that a certain technology’s emissions were high or low. For instance, if decommissioning costs aren’t included in a total-emissions estimate for nuclear energy or natural gas, those studies give artificially low figures.

NREL was seeing surprisingly high emissions numbers for concentrating solar power (CSP) plants, but deeper digging found that many studies combined the numbers from both CSP and natural gas when a utility used combustion of natural gas to supplement solar-energy generation. When the harmonization process allowed CSP emissions to stand on their own, the numbers plunged.

NREL looked at more than 2,000 studies across many generation technologies, applied quality controls, and greatly narrowed the range of estimates to reach reliable medians for greenhouse-gas emissions.

“This methodology allows you to arrive at a better precision, so you can say with more certainty that this is the benefit you get from using this technology rather than that technology,” said NREL Senior Scientist Garvin Heath, who led the project. “Anyone who wants a true comparison of the greenhouse-gas costs should benefit from this.”

Heath noted that today’s decisions on new plants will still have ramifications decades from now. Owners and investors will need to know about greenhouse-gas emissions and their possible effect on the bottom line, while policy-makers need to know the long-term implications of greenhouse gas on climate.

Investors “need to be very forward looking,” Heath said. A power plant is long lived, and its attributes and shortcomings are locked in for decades. That’s why investors push for estimates of greenhouse-gas emissions before they invest.

President Obama’s clean-energy standards require these estimates for each technology as a way to assign credits or discounts for building new plants. Credits, discounts, and the possible future price of carbon all figure heavily into decisions on which technology to choose.

“Analysts and decision-makers want a more robust sense or a narrower range of uncertainty to make the best decisions,” Heath said. Until now, no one has tried to differentiate between low- and high-quality estimates in a comprehensive way.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar was on hand to “flip the switch” on the Enbridge Silver State North Solar Project in Clark County, Nev., earlier this month. The 50-megawatt (MW) project, 40 miles south of Las Vegas, will use photovoltaic (PV) technology to power nearly 9,000 Nevada homes. The project is owned by Enbridge and was developed by First Solar.

image via U.S. Department of the Interior

The administration has been touting an all-of-the-above energy strategy that stretches from oil and gas, to wind power, to this sort of massive solar development in the Southwest.

Pre-Obama, no big solar energy projects had been permitted on public lands. But according to the Interior Department, Silver State North — approved by Salazar in October 2010 — is one of at least 28 renewable energy projects approved for construction on or involving public lands, including 16 solar plants, five wind farms and eight geothermal plants.

Once completed, these projects are expected to provide more than 6,500 MW of electricity to communities across the west, powering more than 2 million homes. Silver State North will also help Nevada move toward its goal of producing 25 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025.