Visibility and Visual Characteristics of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Power Tower Facility
| Author | : |
| Publisher | : |
| Total Pages | : 114 |
| Release | : 2015 |
| Genre | : |
| ISBN | : |
Download Visibility and Visual Characteristics of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Power Tower Facility Book in PDF, ePub and Kindle
This report presents the results of a study conducted to document the visibility and visual characteristics of the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS), a utility-scale solar power tower facility located on land administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management in southern California. Study activities consisted of field observations of the ISEGS facility and comparison of the observations made in the field with the visual contrast assessments and visual simulations in the ISEGS Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) and supporting documents created prior to ISEGS construction. Field observations of ISEGS were made from 19 locations within 35 mi (56 km) of the facility in the course of one week in September 2014. The study results established that reflected sunlight from the receivers was the primary source of visual contrast from the operating ISEGS facility. The ISEGS facility was found to be a major source of visual contrast for all observations up to 20 mi (32 km), and was easily visible at 35 mi. Glare from individual heliostats was frequently visible, and often brighter than the reflected light from the receivers. Heliostat glare caused discomfort for one or more viewers at distances up to 20 mi. The ISEGS power blocks were brightly lit at night, and were conspicuous at the observation distance of approximately 6 mi (10 km). The facility is substantially brighter and is seen more clearly in the field than in photographs of the facility or in the prepared simulations, which were based on photographs. The simulations of the ISEGS facility in the Final EIS, which were evaluated as part of this study, sometimes lacked spatial accuracy and realism. The evaluated simulations generally under-represented the actual visual contrast from the project, and some of the contrast ratings in the Final EIS predicted substantially lower levels of visual contrast than were actually observed for the operating facility.
