Feinstein Kills West's Largest Solar Projects

[travelinman67]

Liberalism is a mental illness...

Desert Vistas vs. Solar Power
By TODD WOODY
Published: December 21, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/busin ... .html?_r=1

AMBOY, Calif. — Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.

But before the bill to create two new Mojave national monuments has even had its first hearing, the California Democrat has largely achieved her aim. Regardless of the legislation’s fate, her opposition means that few if any power plants are likely to be built in the monument area, a complication in California’s effort to achieve its aggressive goals for renewable energy...

...Mrs. Feinstein heads the Senate subcommittee that oversees the budget of the Interior Department, giving her substantial clout over that agency, which manages the government’s landholdings. Her intervention in the Mojave means it will be more difficult for California utilities to achieve a goal, set by the state, of obtaining a third of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020; projects in the monument area could have supplied a substantial portion of that power.

“This is arguably the best solar land in the world, and Senator Feinstein shouldn’t be allowed to take this land off the table without a proper and scientific environmental review,” said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist and a partner with a venture capital firm that invested in a solar developer called BrightSource Energy. In September, BrightSource canceled a large project in the monument area.

Union officials, power industry executives, regulators and some environmentalists have also expressed concern about the impact of the monument legislation, but few would speak publicly for fear of antagonizing one of California’s most powerful politicians...

...As conflicts over building solar farms in the Mojave escalated earlier this year, Mrs. Feinstein trekked to the desert in April. The senator’s caravan, including the heads of two of the nation’s largest utilities, top energy regulators and a group of environmentalists, bumped along a dirt track and pulled up to a wind-whipped tent. Inside, executives with a Goldman Sachs-owned developer waited to make their case for building two multibillion-dollar solar power plants.

The presentation over, the entourage rolled on to the next solar project site to hear the developer’s pitch. Mrs. Feinstein gave the developers a hearing but was not moved by their arguments, according to five people present on the tour. The senator seemed concerned about the visual effect of huge solar farms on Route 66, the highway that runs through the Mojave, they said.

“When we attended the onsite desert meeting with Senator Feinstein, it was clear she was very serious about this,” said Gary Palo, vice president for development with Cogentrix Energy, a solar developer owned by Goldman Sachs. “It would make no sense for us politically or practically to go forward with those projects.”

Another project, a huge 12,000-acre solar farm by Tessera Solar, was canceled last week, and the company cited Mrs. Feinstein’s opposition.

Steven L. Kline, chief sustainability officer for Pacific Gas and Electric, called the proposed monument “prime territory” for solar development and noted that the loss of the planned solar projects would hurt his company’s efforts to comply with state renewable energy mandates. The utility was planning a solar farm in the monument area.

THIS is why America has lost 8 million jobs and has over 10% unemployment since the Dems took control of Congress.



VOTE EVERYONE OUT!!!

Shit-for-brains like Feinstein CLEARLY don't get the message.

[travelinman67]

Enter dback and Appa with their "Endangered Curly-Shelled Tortoise" article in 5-4-3-2...

[Col Hogan]

What really kills me about this article is that a Kennedy was backing one of the projects...

It was the Kennedy family that killed a big wind project off the coast of Massachusetts...because it would degrade the view from their Hyannis Port home...

[ASUG8]

The bottom line is that everybody thinks this is a good idea as long as it's not in their backyard. At some point, if we want energy independence and less reliance on foreign oil or non-renewable resources, we have to make some tough choices on exploiting our own environment. I can appreciate that vistas will be compromised with ANWR and a field of solar panels or windmills in California, but that's the reality. We can drill for oil someplace that's less picturesque, but won't generate a yield - same with wind-prone or sun-drenched areas. Someone has to make the call. Generally, infrastructure isn't pretty, but a necessity.

[Pwns]

The donks are clearly not serious about non-carbon energy. I honestly hope the republicans pull out all the stops to derail Obama's cap-and-strangle plan.

[JMU DJ]

There's more effiecent ways of generating "clean" electricity. Photovoltaic cells and Wind Turbines are very inefficient, it's just people like you and Tman are familiar with them so the idea sounds good. When the idea gets the kibosh, it begins the attack of "they don't care about finding clean energy." Look into the cost of current photovoltaic cells and wind farms versus the energy they produce, the current plans would be a waste of spending for such little return. But all you ever hear about it the "not in my backyard"/"Save the animals" stories... there is currently no technology that can replace our dependence on current fuel sources otherwise we would be using them already, any technology we have now would just be a drop in the bucket.





... and for some Tman-eque quotation:

"Ethanol is a net energy loss - it takes 70 percent more energy to produce than is obtained from the product itself. Other biomass resources show, at best, very low net energy recovery...

The two most popularly suggested energy alternatives, wind and solar, suffer because they're undependable, intermittent sources of energy, and the end product is electricity. We have no way to store large amounts of electricity for use when wind and sunshine are not with us. Geothermal and tidal energy are insignificant energy sources in total but can be locally important. Nuclear energy can be a large power source if the safety aspects can be guaranteed (and this may be possible) -- but again, the end product is electricity. There is no battery pack even remotely in sight that would supply the energy needed to effectively power bulldozers, heavy agricultural equipment such as tractors and combines, or 18-wheelers hauling freight cross-country.

Can electricity be used to obtain hydrogen as a fuel from water? It can, but hydrogen is difficult to store and dangerous to handle. And there is no energy system now visualized to replace kerosene jet fuel, which propels a Boeing 747 about 600 miles an hour nonstop on the 14-hour trip from New York to Capetown (currently the longest plane flight). We continue to seek the holy grail of energy - fusion - but containing the heat of the sun at 10 million degrees Centigrade is still only a far-off hope."

~Walter Youngquist, PhD, Emeritus Chair of the Department of Geology at the University of Oregon at Portland

"The wind doesn’t always blow and sunlight isn’t always striking every solar panel. Renewable energy desperately needs a very big battery, a load leveler. Without some form of energy storage, renewables are physically limited to less than a twenty percent share of the grid. At twenty percent, renewables are more of a headache than a resource for a grid manager. Electricity storage tools are expensive. Very expensive. Too expensive to justify on their own or at societal scale."

David B. Barber, MS, Nuclear Engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory

Artificial reliance on unconventional energies is problematic outside niche applications. Politically favored renewable energies for generating electricity are expensive and supply constrained and introduce their own environmental issues. Alternative vehicular technologies are, at best, decades away from mass commercialization. Meanwhile, natural gas and reformulated gasoline are setting a torrid competitive pace in the electricity and transportation markets, respectively."

Robert L. Bradley, Jr., PhD, Founder and Chairman of the Institute for Energy Research



Next topic.

[dbackjon]

She is correct. Nuclear is the way to go

[AZGrizFan]

So, it's obvious from DJ's post that what we need to do is build more dams.

[Appaholic]

Enter dback and Appa with their "Endangered Curly-Shelled Tortoise" article in 5-4-3-2...

You get no argument from me on this one....I'm on the renewable energy side in this debate...we have a similar issue here in western NC which is being thwarted by the democratically-led NC state government...

North Carolina Senate Rejects Mountaintop Wind Farms

The North Carolina Senate has voted overwhelmingly to ban commercial wind farms from the state’s picturesque western mountain ranges.

With its 42 to 1 vote, the Senate appears to have dealt a near-fatal blow to prospects for commercial generation of wind energy in the Tar Heel State.

The Senate vote came on August 6, at the end of the legislative session, leaving no time for the House to take up the bill.

Proponents of wind farms are expected to seek to revive support for mountaintop wind complexes, but the near-unanimous Senate vote illustrates strong statewide opposition.


Few Viable Sites

As is true of most southern states, most of North Carolina lacks sufficient wind for giant turbines to produce enough energy to make wind farms commercially viable, even with generous federal subsidies.

Only in the highest peaks of North Carolina’s segment of the Appalachian Mountains, some of which soar well above 6,000 feet, is there a relatively constant flow of wind. But these areas, with their spectacular waterfalls and riveting rock formations, have a natural beauty lawmakers do not want blighted by gigantic wind turbines.
http://www.heartland.org/publications/e ... Farms.html

Bullshit....all you need is ridgeline over 3k feet....this could be allowed with restrictions to accomodate scenic vistas & could be clustered together in small areas to minimize impact....very irresponsible considering that disallowing development of wind energy by default promotes the coal industry which impacts moutain ridges in their own way...

[JMU DJ]

So, it's obvious from DJ's post that what we need to do is build more dams.

Nope, hydro power is only local. It can be a big aid, especially in tidal areas... but what does that do for you in the middle of the desert?

[AZGrizFan]

So, it's obvious from DJ's post that what we need to do is build more dams.

Nope, hydro power is only local. It can be a big aid, especially in tidal areas... but what does that do for you in the middle of the desert?

Local? Are you telling me that Hoover Dam doesn't add power to the grid? Glen Canyon Dam doesn't add power to the grid?

[Appaholic]

So, it's obvious from DJ's post that what we need to do is build more dams.

Nope, hydro power is only local. It can be a big aid, especially in tidal areas... but what does that do for you in the middle of the desert?

But isn't local the manner in which we'll have to develop future power sources? Technically, oil is local, but we ship it all over the world...the reason I'm advocating development of wind farms, PV, tidal, etc is that there is no "magic" bullet that will solve this issue...no matter what we develop, we'll still need oil...it'd just be nice to not be so dependent upon that oil (& the countries who develop it) going forward...

[AZGrizFan]

Bullshit....all you need is ridgeline over 3k feet....this could be allowed with restrictions to accomodate scenic vistas & could be clustered together in small areas to minimize impact....very irresponsible considering that disallowing development of wind energy by default promotes the coal industry which impacts moutain ridges in their own way...

That is a tough choice.

[Grizalltheway]

There's more effiecent ways of generating "clean" electricity. Photovoltaic cells and Wind Turbines are very inefficient, it's just people like you and Tman are familiar with them so the idea sounds good. When the idea gets the kibosh, it begins the attack of "they don't care about finding clean energy." Look into the cost of current photovoltaic cells and wind farms versus the energy they produce, the current plans would be a waste of spending for such little return. But all you ever hear about it the "not in my backyard"/"Save the animals" stories... there is currently no technology that can replace our dependence on current fuel sources otherwise we would be using them already, any technology we have now would just be a drop in the bucket.





... and for some Tman-eque quotation:

"Ethanol is a net energy loss - it takes 70 percent more energy to produce than is obtained from the product itself. Other biomass resources show, at best, very low net energy recovery...

The two most popularly suggested energy alternatives, wind and solar, suffer because they're undependable, intermittent sources of energy, and the end product is electricity. We have no way to store large amounts of electricity for use when wind and sunshine are not with us. Geothermal and tidal energy are insignificant energy sources in total but can be locally important. Nuclear energy can be a large power source if the safety aspects can be guaranteed (and this may be possible) -- but again, the end product is electricity. There is no battery pack even remotely in sight that would supply the energy needed to effectively power bulldozers, heavy agricultural equipment such as tractors and combines, or 18-wheelers hauling freight cross-country.

Can electricity be used to obtain hydrogen as a fuel from water? It can, but hydrogen is difficult to store and dangerous to handle. And there is no energy system now visualized to replace kerosene jet fuel, which propels a Boeing 747 about 600 miles an hour nonstop on the 14-hour trip from New York to Capetown (currently the longest plane flight). We continue to seek the holy grail of energy - fusion - but containing the heat of the sun at 10 million degrees Centigrade is still only a far-off hope."

~Walter Youngquist, PhD, Emeritus Chair of the Department of Geology at the University of Oregon at Portland

"The wind doesn’t always blow and sunlight isn’t always striking every solar panel. Renewable energy desperately needs a very big battery, a load leveler. Without some form of energy storage, renewables are physically limited to less than a twenty percent share of the grid. At twenty percent, renewables are more of a headache than a resource for a grid manager. Electricity storage tools are expensive. Very expensive. Too expensive to justify on their own or at societal scale."

David B. Barber, MS, Nuclear Engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory

Artificial reliance on unconventional energies is problematic outside niche applications. Politically favored renewable energies for generating electricity are expensive and supply constrained and introduce their own environmental issues. Alternative vehicular technologies are, at best, decades away from mass commercialization. Meanwhile, natural gas and reformulated gasoline are setting a torrid competitive pace in the electricity and transportation markets, respectively."

Robert L. Bradley, Jr., PhD, Founder and Chairman of the Institute for Energy Research



Next topic.

But of course Tman just knee jerks (as he loves to accuse others of doing) and blames the entire recession on Feinstein.

[Appaholic]

Bullshit....all you need is ridgeline over 3k feet....this could be allowed with restrictions to accomodate scenic vistas & could be clustered together in small areas to minimize impact....very irresponsible considering that disallowing development of wind energy by default promotes the coal industry which impacts moutain ridges in their own way...

That is a tough choice.

Not really....

[JMU DJ]

Nope, hydro power is only local. It can be a big aid, especially in tidal areas... but what does that do for you in the middle of the desert?

Local? Are you telling me that Hoover Dam doesn't add power to the grid? Glen Canyon Dam doesn't add power to the grid?

As of right now, the United States is the second leading producer of hydroelectric power in the world. That power generated covers a whopping 8% of our energy consumption. It is used by other, smaller countries as the main source of energy, I believe some of those Scandinavian countries run almost completely off of hydropower. So, currently 8%... you gonna damn up every major river?

[Appaholic]

Local? Are you telling me that Hoover Dam doesn't add power to the grid? Glen Canyon Dam doesn't add power to the grid?

As of right now, the United States is the second leading producer of hydroelectric power in the world. That power generated covers a whopping 8% of our energy consumption. It is used by other, smaller countries as the main source of energy, I believe some of those Scandinavian countries run almost completely off of hydropower. So, currently 8%... you gonna damn up every major river?

Tman & AZ's wet dream.....more surface area for the Waverunner...

[AZGrizFan]

Local? Are you telling me that Hoover Dam doesn't add power to the grid? Glen Canyon Dam doesn't add power to the grid?

As of right now, the United States is the second leading producer of hydroelectric power in the world. That power generated covers a whopping 8% of our energy consumption. It is used by other, smaller countries as the main source of energy, I believe some of those Scandinavian countries run almost completely off of hydropower. So, currently 8%... you gonna damn up every major river?

Hey, myron, you can't have it both ways. You don't want to build solar or wind because they aren't "efficient", but you don't want to build hydro (the 90% efficiency method, from your OWN graph), because we'd have to kill some snail darters?

EVERY method of generating power has it's drawbacks. Pick your poison and quit acting like you're working for some pie-in-the-sky thinktank.

[Appaholic]

As of right now, the United States is the second leading producer of hydroelectric power in the world. That power generated covers a whopping 8% of our energy consumption. It is used by other, smaller countries as the main source of energy, I believe some of those Scandinavian countries run almost completely off of hydropower. So, currently 8%... you gonna damn up every major river?

Hey, myron, you can't have it both ways. You don't want to build solar or wind because they aren't "efficient", but you don't want to build hydro (the 90% efficiency method, from your OWN graph), because we'd have to kill some snail darters?

EVERY method of generating power has it's drawbacks. Pick your poison and quit acting like you're working for some pie-in-the-sky thinktank.

Agree....or better yet, pick many poisons....maybe a regional windfarm for residential subsidized with small hydro power for regional industry in conjunction with building houses with southerly direction using building materials to promote thermal mass heating of residential buildings....

[JMU DJ]

As of right now, the United States is the second leading producer of hydroelectric power in the world. That power generated covers a whopping 8% of our energy consumption. It is used by other, smaller countries as the main source of energy, I believe some of those Scandinavian countries run almost completely off of hydropower. So, currently 8%... you gonna damn up every major river?

Hey, myron, you can't have it both ways. You don't want to build solar or wind because they aren't "efficient", but you don't want to build hydro (the 90% efficiency method, from your OWN graph), because we'd have to kill some snail darters?

EVERY method of generating power has it's drawbacks. Pick your poison and quit acting like you're working for some pie-in-the-sky thinktank.

That's what I was saying in my initial post dingleberry... have I taken a stance on any alternative fuel in this thread or any fuel for that matter Z? Yes, hydro is the most efficient, but at the state the US is currently at... not feasible.

[AZGrizFan]

Let me see if I've got the Donk argument straight:

1) You don't want us drilling offshore because it might spoil the wetlands, or the view, or damage some coral
2) You don't want us drilling in Alaska because it might harm the tundra and oil is a finite product and we need to develop alternative renewable energy sources; BUT:

1) You don't want to build Hydroelectric because it required damming rivers and the NIMBY effect.
2) You don't want to build Solar because it's inefficient and the NIMBY effect
3) You don't want to build Windmills because they're inefficient and there's no effective way to store excess electricity that's produced
4) You don't want to build nuclear because there's no safe way to store the waste

But you INSIST that we lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Care to share exactly HOW that's going to happen any time soon with your mindset? California passes a law REQUIRING that 20% of their energy needs be met by renewable energy sources, and their OWN FUCKING Democratic senator kills major projects that would go a long ways towards California meeting their own mandate.


You folks are pieces of work.

[AZGrizFan]

Hey, myron, you can't have it both ways. You don't want to build solar or wind because they aren't "efficient", but you don't want to build hydro (the 90% efficiency method, from your OWN graph), because we'd have to kill some snail darters?

EVERY method of generating power has it's drawbacks. Pick your poison and quit acting like you're working for some pie-in-the-sky thinktank.

That's what I was saying in my initial post dingleberry... have I taken a stance on any alternative fuel in this thread or any fuel for that matter Z? Yes, hydro is the most efficient, but at the state the US is currently at... not feasible.

Interesting choice of words. The way I read your post you've taken a stance AGAINST any form of alternative fuel source.

[Appaholic]

Let me see if I've got the Donk argument straight:

1) You don't want us drilling offshore because it might spoil the wetlands, or the view, or damage some coral
2) You don't want us drilling in Alaska because it might harm the tundra and oil is a finite product and we need to develop alternative renewable energy sources; BUT:

1) You don't want to build Hydroelectric because it required damming rivers and the NIMBY effect.
2) You don't want to build Solar because it's inefficient and the NIMBY effect
3) You don't want to build Windmills because they're inefficient and there's no effective way to store excess electricity that's produced
4) You don't want to build nuclear because there's no safe way to store the waste

But you INSIST that we lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Care to share exactly HOW that's going to happen any time soon with your mindset? California passes a law REQUIRING that 20% of their energy needs be met by renewable energy sources, and their OWN FUCKING Democratic senator kills major projects that would go a long ways towards California meeting their own mandate.


You folks are pieces of work.

ding! ding! ding!......proof, yet again, that a vote for either of the major parties with the expectation of "change" from the normal business operations was a futile vote indeed.... ...gotta agree with TMan's original post to throw 'em all out.....

[JMU DJ]

[

Agree....or better yet, pick many poisons....maybe a regional windfarm for residential subsidized with small hydro power for regional industry in conjunction with building houses with southerly direction using building materials to promote thermal mass heating of residential buildings....

Hmmm, sounds like someone understands what I was getting at... there's a kid I graduated who is working on this. He's currently secured funding and built the first "green" house that is entirely self sufficient and detached from "the grid." Some eco students at JMU are currently living in it and doing research. As Appa mentioned, I don't believe there will be one technology that will meet our needs... it may need to be a combination of what's best for each local. Hydro will be feasible in one place where a wind farm may be benificial in another where nuclear will be needed to meet the needs elsewhere... etc... etc... etc...

[JMU DJ]

Interesting choice of words. The way I read your post you've taken a stance AGAINST any form of alternative fuel source.

The current state of alternative fuels to be used for the provision of electricity to the masses is currently in a state that is not economically reasonable. That's my position. If more efficient solar cells can be generated, if "batteries" capable of storing mass quantities of energy are developed, if we can make better ways to harness the energy without losing so much... there's a lot of if's that need to be answered before any of this technology could be feasibly used. Until then, it'd be like lighting your money on fire to try and keep your hands warm.