Comparing the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility

Sammy Roth’s claim that the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project would “produce” 6.2 gigawatts (GW) compared to Diablo Canyon’s 2.2 GW might suggest solar’s superiority. However, this overlooks the difference between capacity (maximum potential output) and generation (actual electricity produced). On a typical fall day, Esmeralda would average 1.34 GW, while Diablo Canyon delivers a steady 2.2 GW across 24 hours. This analysis compares the two facilities, highlighting nuclear’s reliability and efficiency over solar’s variability and land-intensive design.

Collectively, the “Esmeralda 7” would have been by far the nation’s biggest solar project, producing a bonkers 6.2 gigawatts of power (with 5.2 gigawatts of battery storage). California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear plant generates 2.2 gigawatts.

Key Comparison

Esmeralda’s 6.2 GW capacity, the largest proposed U.S. solar project, dwarfs Diablo Canyon’s 2.2 GW nuclear capacity. Yet, key differences emerge:

• Esmeralda averages 1.34 GW (21.7% capacity factor, the ratio of actual to potential output) on November 7, generating power for 9 hours (13 with batteries), requiring backup for 11 hours.

• Diablo Canyon operates continuously at 2.2 GW, providing 24/7 power except during 18- to 24-month refueling cycles.

• Esmeralda spans 62,300 acres, while Diablo Canyon uses 750 acres, underscoring nuclear’s superior energy density.

Figure 1 illustrates these contrasts, showing Diablo Canyon’s consistent output against Esmeralda’s variability.

Figure 1 - Key Data Comparison

Solar Model Analysis

Using NREL’s PVWatts model, configured for Esmeralda County, Nevada, with premium modules and 2-axis tracking (panels that follow the sun’s path), Esmeralda’s 6.2 GW capacity was modeled for November 7, a representative fall day with reduced solar output. Generation occurs from 7 AM to 3 PM, peaking at 5.17 GW and averaging 1.34 GW (Figure 2). Note: I used November 7 because that was the day that I read the article and began comparisons. Otherwise, nothing special about this day.

Figure 2 - Esmeralda 7 Planned Capacity and Nov. 7 Modeled Generation

A 5.2 GWh Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) charges from 8 AM and discharges from 3 PM to 7 PM, extending output by 4 hours (Figure 3). This reduces but does not eliminate the 11-hour backup need (Figure 4).

Figure 3 - BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) Charging and Withdrawal Cycle

Figure 4 shows the line for total facility output (Solar plus Battery) and the original solar line. Note that from 8 AM to 3 PM, the amount decreases to charge the batteries, but then at 4PM, the net solar plus battery line stays positive thru 7PM for the four hour batteries. The green line is what would be delivered to the grid.

Figure 4 - Net Solar Plus Battery versus Solar Alone

Net output remains positive until 7 PM with battery support, compared to solar-only generation.

Esmeralda surpasses Diablo Canyon’s 2.2 GW from 8 AM to 2 PM but drops to zero after 7 PM, even with batteries, while Diablo Canyon maintains constant output (Figure 5).

Figure 5 - Esmeralda 7 Solar Plus Battery versus Diablo Canyon Nuclear Facility

Monthly trends (Figure 6) show Diablo Canyon’s consistent 2.2 GW, while Esmeralda peaks in summer and dips in winter, with persistent intermittency.

Figure 6 - Generation By the Two Facilities versus the Month of the Year

Background

he Esmeralda 7 Solar Project, planned for 6.2 GW across 62,300 acres in Nevada, aimed to be the largest U.S. solar complex. Proposed by developers like NextEra Energy Resources, it began environmental reviews in July 2024. On October 10, 2025, the BLM canceled its combined environmental impact statement, allowing individual approvals amid shifting energy priorities.

Conclusion

Esmeralda 7’s 6.2 GW capacity is impressive, but its 1.34 GW average output, 11-hour daily backup need, and vast land use pale against Diablo Canyon’s 2.2 GW continuous output and compact footprint. Nuclear’s reliability and energy density make it essential for stable, low-carbon grids, while solar’s scalability requires complementary solutions to address intermittency. This comparison informs energy planning, favoring nuclear for consistent power needs.