Feinstein Kills West's Largest Solar Projects

[travelinman67]

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:


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



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


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.

You missed the point, Grasshopper.

The issue is obstructionism, as is aptly demonstrated by the Donk response in this thread.

Regardless of the solution offered, be it hydroelectric, hydrogen, solar, natural gas, nuclear...

...liberals find something "wrong" with the idea and pull all stops via enviro-whacko reasoning to obstruct the completion.

Simply put, liberals don't WANT any solution...they're programmed to find fault with any idea.

THAT'S why our country's economy has collapsed.

Regardless of whether the issue is energy, environment, industry, labor, healthcare, or social morals...

...the liberals' agenda is to destroy existing norms, and block all reform, reconstruction or solution which allows an existing paradigm to survive.

[travelinman67]

No. You state there are better options at this time, than follow that up by saying rather "than wasting money on CURRENT technologies". Which is it?

And based on your graph from earlier, I don't see any BETTER options or techologies out there. If we want to get off the Middle East oil teet sooner rather than later, we NEED some stop-gap implementation in the next 15 years while we go through the R&D process...

Goodness Z, is that really that hard to get?

Why waste money on an energy source that isn't going to do anything to curb our use of foreign oil? There are better technologies out there, i.e. they produce energy more efficiently and are cheaper. Doesn't mean they are clean or new, but again, why waste your money on a new inefficient technology that isn't going to help in the end when we currently have better methods of energy production. Comprende?

Then by your own post, you would support expansion of hydroelectric?

It's more efficient and cheaper in the long-term.

[travelinman67]

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....

In your idea of a local power supply is everyone going to have their own battery system in their house to provide backup? Because the wind isn't always blowing, sun not shining, equipment breaks, etc. Everything in the grid is connected. There are things like spinning reserves (generators spinning but producing at a minimum) that ramp up quickly if the load changes or another supply source is lost.

It's not as simple as hooking up a wind turbine and having the electrons flow to your house.

Food for thought.

I was reading an article last week where a small "enclave" in Oregon "stored" their excess energy in heat sinks (heating elements in large coolant vessels), which later was circulated for heating & cooking. A more sophisticated system could power a thermal pump to either chill or heat the coolant depending on the seasonal requirements. These "thermal" mass units could be set up at large commercial centers as "supplemental" systems to their existing environmental controls. The BTU capacity would need to meet the potential total kwh output in the event the entire grid went offline (or dropped to zero consumption), so in heavy load periods, these sinks would be underutilized, or possibly, assuming zero consumption, a condition could exist where the stored therms would end up not being utilized, BUT, this type of system would eliminate a dual current storage mechanism which is costly.

[JMU DJ]

You missed the point, Grasshopper.

The issue is obstructionism, as is aptly demonstrated by the Donk response in this thread.

Regardless of the solution offered, be it hydroelectric, hydrogen, solar, natural gas, nuclear...

...liberals find something "wrong" with the idea and pull all stops via enviro-whacko reasoning to obstruct the completion.

Simply put, liberals don't WANT any solution...they're programmed to find fault with any idea.

THAT'S why our country's economy has collapsed.

Regardless of whether the issue is energy, environment, industry, labor, healthcare, or social morals...

...the liberals' agenda is to destroy existing norms, and block all reform, reconstruction or solution which allows an existing paradigm to survive.

You are aware you started this thread based on a "liberal" blocking a wind/solar farm? You do know republicans have done just the same?

Ted Stevens (R) & Don Young (R) added an amendment entitled "Opinions Regarding Whether Certain Facilities Create Obstructions to Navigation" into a cost guard bill, giving Mitt Romeny (R), who was anti-wind farm, the ability to veto the wind farm in Nantucket.... and what do you know TMan, now that Romney isn't in office anymore, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick is a strong proponent of the wind farm. Ohhhhhhh the Humanity!


... and looks like a Dem from NC was the only one against legislation that would prevent large wind turbines from being installed in western NC. Steve Goss (D) has said he is committed to protecting the environment, however he feels wind power has great potential.



The views on energy legislation in Texas...

[youtube][/youtube]




Dang Tman, those Dems really hate clean energy

Then by your own post, you would support expansion of hydroelectric?

It's more efficient and cheaper in the long-term.

Read thread, see my views, then ask your question again.

[HI54UNI]

You missed the point, Grasshopper.

The issue is obstructionism, as is aptly demonstrated by the Donk response in this thread.

Regardless of the solution offered, be it hydroelectric, hydrogen, solar, natural gas, nuclear...

...liberals find something "wrong" with the idea and pull all stops via enviro-whacko reasoning to obstruct the completion.

Simply put, liberals don't WANT any solution...they're programmed to find fault with any idea.

THAT'S why our country's economy has collapsed.

Regardless of whether the issue is energy, environment, industry, labor, healthcare, or social morals...

...the liberals' agenda is to destroy existing norms, and block all reform, reconstruction or solution which allows an existing paradigm to survive.

You are aware you started this thread based on a "liberal" blocking a wind/solar farm? You do know republicans have done just the same?

Ted Stevens (R) & Don Young (R) added an amendment entitled "Opinions Regarding Whether Certain Facilities Create Obstructions to Navigation" into a cost guard bill, giving Mitt Romeny (R), who was anti-wind farm, the ability to veto the wind farm in Nantucket.... and what do you know TMan, now that Romney isn't in office anymore, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick is a strong proponent of the wind farm. Ohhhhhhh the Humanity!


... and looks like a Dem from NC was the only one against legislation that would prevent large wind turbines from being installed in western NC. Steve Goss (D) has said he is committed to protecting the environment, however he feels wind power has great potential.



The views on energy legislation in Texas...

[youtube][/youtube]




Dang Tman, those Dems really hate clean energy

Then by your own post, you would support expansion of hydroelectric?

It's more efficient and cheaper in the long-term.

Read thread, see my views, then ask your question again.

LMAO at legislators talking about CO2 capture and sequestration. Everybody talks like we can do this but there are no commercially viable ways to do this on a large scale at this time.

[HI54UNI]

In your idea of a local power supply is everyone going to have their own battery system in their house to provide backup? Because the wind isn't always blowing, sun not shining, equipment breaks, etc. Everything in the grid is connected. There are things like spinning reserves (generators spinning but producing at a minimum) that ramp up quickly if the load changes or another supply source is lost.

It's not as simple as hooking up a wind turbine and having the electrons flow to your house.

Food for thought.

I was reading an article last week where a small "enclave" in Oregon "stored" their excess energy in heat sinks (heating elements in large coolant vessels), which later was circulated for heating & cooking. A more sophisticated system could power a thermal pump to either chill or heat the coolant depending on the seasonal requirements. These "thermal" mass units could be set up at large commercial centers as "supplemental" systems to their existing environmental controls. The BTU capacity would need to meet the potential total kwh output in the event the entire grid went offline (or dropped to zero consumption), so in heavy load periods, these sinks would be underutilized, or possibly, assuming zero consumption, a condition could exist where the stored therms would end up not being utilized, BUT, this type of system would eliminate a dual current storage mechanism which is costly.

There are different things we can do for storage. The heat sinks you mentioned, using surplus off peak energy to pump water back into a reservoir at a dam, running large air compresssors on surplus off peak energy to pump air into an underground cavern and then releasing it through a turbine during the on peak periods. The problem is all of these methods are horribly inefficient.

One of the things we should be doing is figuring out how to make use of existing dams. We have numerous dams on the Mississippi that don't have hydro electric facilities. It is a terrible waste of an existing resource.

[Appaholic]

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....

In your idea of a local power supply is everyone going to have their own battery system in their house to provide backup? Because the wind isn't always blowing, sun not shining, equipment breaks, etc. Everything in the grid is connected. There are things like spinning reserves (generators spinning but producing at a minimum) that ramp up quickly if the load changes or another supply source is lost.

It's not as simple as hooking up a wind turbine and having the electrons flow to your house.

They will if they want continuous power during all forseeable events. And you haven't experienced a power failure with the current system? Find that hard to believe...nothing is foolproof hence the creation of gas-fired generators. But you could have wind & solar complementing each other in the same system with an invertor and still be tied into the current power grid. Like i said, there is no one magic bullet, but if we could start reducing the need for foreign oil or slow down the destruction of mountain-tops for coal by spreading the energy demand over several point sources, is that such a bad thing?

[Appaholic]

So, are you saying more coal fired plants?

Yes! We have 300+ years worth of coal in this country. Coal power is cheap and reliable. New plants have all kinds of emission control equipment that have dramatically decreased pollution. This is the only way we are going to get off the oil teat any time in the foreseeable future.

Is it cheaper? Are you factoring in all the costs?

"Twenty years ago few people figured that as the new millennium approached, America would be so dependent on a source of energy that was banned in the city of London in 1273 for being injuri-ous to public health. In 1973 the Federal Power Commission predicted that coal's share of U.S. electricity generation would decline from 46 percent to 30 percent by 1990. Coal had the virtue of being widely available inside the United States. And at a cost of less than two cents per kilowatt-hour of power, it was cheap. It was, in fact, so much cheaper than renewable resources like wind and solar energy that it all but eliminated them as commercial sources of electricity. Or at least coal seemed cheap, until environmentalists, state utility regulators, and some economists began to argue that the market price of coal does not reflect a wide range of "external" costs that society, or some segment of society, will eventually pay. The economists maintain that the coal James Mullins was digging, which cost about $20 a ton at the mouth of Southmountain No. 3, would be much more expensive if these costs were added on, or "internalized."

"A calculation of the full cost of coal needs to take into account damage to the environment around the mine. Until the mid-1960s coal-mine owners were from an environmental standpoint barely regulated. The waste from their mines drained into local streams. When strip-mining came along, they began tearing the tops off green Appalachian ridges, gouging out as much coal as they could easily get to and leaving great unhealed brown gashes. When a young biologist named Phil Shelton arrived in Wise to teach at Clinch Valley College, in 1970, he found some of the streams running black with mine wastes. "

"Such assessments dramatically diminish coal's attractiveness as a generating fuel when utility companies weigh how to meet new demands for power. If Massachusetts external-cost assessments are used in an example, the ton of coal that costs $20 at Southmountain No. 3 and $46 delivered to the Chalk Point station will be priced instead at roughly $200. Robin Walther, a senior economist at Southern California Edison, calculates that if the state utilities commission's highest external-cost estimates were added in, coal would cost seventeen or eighteen cents per kilowatt-hour rather than around 1.8 cents."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199312/cullen-mining

[mainejeff]

Rabbits.

[HI54UNI]

In your idea of a local power supply is everyone going to have their own battery system in their house to provide backup? Because the wind isn't always blowing, sun not shining, equipment breaks, etc. Everything in the grid is connected. There are things like spinning reserves (generators spinning but producing at a minimum) that ramp up quickly if the load changes or another supply source is lost.

It's not as simple as hooking up a wind turbine and having the electrons flow to your house.

They will if they want continuous power during all forseeable events. And you haven't experienced a power failure with the current system? Find that hard to believe...nothing is foolproof hence the creation of gas-fired generators. But you could have wind & solar complementing each other in the same system with an invertor and still be tied into the current power grid. Like i said, there is no one magic bullet, but if we could start reducing the need for foreign oil or slow down the destruction of mountain-tops for coal by spreading the energy demand over several point sources, is that such a bad thing?

I've been a customer of my current provider for almost 15 years. The total power outages in that period is less than 5 hours.

I don't have a problem with diversifying sources. Here's my beef, Joe Customer wants to put up his own windmill to power his house. He has battery backup for the periods when the wind doesn't blow. He also wants to be connected to the grid for the period when his windmill and batteries don't work. Why should the utility company have to provide him electricity? Who pays the cost? Odds are that Joe's system will fail on a hot day when demand for electricity is high. The utility has to plan for that so they have to build additional generator capacity for Joe. They also have to include Joe's load in their mandatory reserve calculations. Yet Joe doesn't pay any of the cost of that because he doesn't use the grid 99% of the time. SHould utilities be able to make Joe pay 30, 40, 75 cents a KWH on those days?

[HI54UNI]

Yes! We have 300+ years worth of coal in this country. Coal power is cheap and reliable. New plants have all kinds of emission control equipment that have dramatically decreased pollution. This is the only way we are going to get off the oil teat any time in the foreseeable future.

Is it cheaper? Are you factoring in all the costs?

"Twenty years ago few people figured that as the new millennium approached, America would be so dependent on a source of energy that was banned in the city of London in 1273 for being injuri-ous to public health. In 1973 the Federal Power Commission predicted that coal's share of U.S. electricity generation would decline from 46 percent to 30 percent by 1990. Coal had the virtue of being widely available inside the United States. And at a cost of less than two cents per kilowatt-hour of power, it was cheap. It was, in fact, so much cheaper than renewable resources like wind and solar energy that it all but eliminated them as commercial sources of electricity. Or at least coal seemed cheap, until environmentalists, state utility regulators, and some economists began to argue that the market price of coal does not reflect a wide range of "external" costs that society, or some segment of society, will eventually pay. The economists maintain that the coal James Mullins was digging, which cost about $20 a ton at the mouth of Southmountain No. 3, would be much more expensive if these costs were added on, or "internalized."

"A calculation of the full cost of coal needs to take into account damage to the environment around the mine. Until the mid-1960s coal-mine owners were from an environmental standpoint barely regulated. The waste from their mines drained into local streams. When strip-mining came along, they began tearing the tops off green Appalachian ridges, gouging out as much coal as they could easily get to and leaving great unhealed brown gashes. When a young biologist named Phil Shelton arrived in Wise to teach at Clinch Valley College, in 1970, he found some of the streams running black with mine wastes. "

"Such assessments dramatically diminish coal's attractiveness as a generating fuel when utility companies weigh how to meet new demands for power. If Massachusetts external-cost assessments are used in an example, the ton of coal that costs $20 at Southmountain No. 3 and $46 delivered to the Chalk Point station will be priced instead at roughly $200. Robin Walther, a senior economist at Southern California Edison, calculates that if the state utilities commission's highest external-cost estimates were added in, coal would cost seventeen or eighteen cents per kilowatt-hour rather than around 1.8 cents."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199312/cullen-mining

What a bunch of crapola. Blaming train crashes on coal fired power plants? ANY source of electricity is going to have these issues. What about the steel towers for the windmills and all the environmental issues with producing the steel? What about the fiberglass blades and the air pollution that comes from fiberglass production? What is the value of the birds and bats killed by windmills? What about the visual and noise pollution for those that live nearby? Wind mill parts are transported by truck and train so better add those train crashes and car crashes in for those too. And don't forget all the environmental damage related to the batteries you will need.

[Pwns]

Rabbits.

The US's birth rates have been below replacement levels for many years. Spare us the New World Order propaganda.

[kalm]

Rabbits.

The US's birth rates have been below replacement levels for many years. Spare us the New World Order propaganda.

Energy, environment, population, and economics are global problems that can have domestic ramifications.

[Appaholic]

Is it cheaper? Are you factoring in all the costs?

"Twenty years ago few people figured that as the new millennium approached, America would be so dependent on a source of energy that was banned in the city of London in 1273 for being injuri-ous to public health. In 1973 the Federal Power Commission predicted that coal's share of U.S. electricity generation would decline from 46 percent to 30 percent by 1990. Coal had the virtue of being widely available inside the United States. And at a cost of less than two cents per kilowatt-hour of power, it was cheap. It was, in fact, so much cheaper than renewable resources like wind and solar energy that it all but eliminated them as commercial sources of electricity. Or at least coal seemed cheap, until environmentalists, state utility regulators, and some economists began to argue that the market price of coal does not reflect a wide range of "external" costs that society, or some segment of society, will eventually pay. The economists maintain that the coal James Mullins was digging, which cost about $20 a ton at the mouth of Southmountain No. 3, would be much more expensive if these costs were added on, or "internalized."

"A calculation of the full cost of coal needs to take into account damage to the environment around the mine. Until the mid-1960s coal-mine owners were from an environmental standpoint barely regulated. The waste from their mines drained into local streams. When strip-mining came along, they began tearing the tops off green Appalachian ridges, gouging out as much coal as they could easily get to and leaving great unhealed brown gashes. When a young biologist named Phil Shelton arrived in Wise to teach at Clinch Valley College, in 1970, he found some of the streams running black with mine wastes. "

"Such assessments dramatically diminish coal's attractiveness as a generating fuel when utility companies weigh how to meet new demands for power. If Massachusetts external-cost assessments are used in an example, the ton of coal that costs $20 at Southmountain No. 3 and $46 delivered to the Chalk Point station will be priced instead at roughly $200. Robin Walther, a senior economist at Southern California Edison, calculates that if the state utilities commission's highest external-cost estimates were added in, coal would cost seventeen or eighteen cents per kilowatt-hour rather than around 1.8 cents."
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199312/cullen-mining

What a bunch of crapola. Blaming train crashes on coal fired power plants? ANY source of electricity is going to have these issues. What about the steel towers for the windmills and all the environmental issues with producing the steel? What about the fiberglass blades and the air pollution that comes from fiberglass production? What is the value of the birds and bats killed by windmills? What about the visual and noise pollution for those that live nearby? Wind mill parts are transported by truck and train so better add those train crashes and car crashes in for those too. And don't forget all the environmental damage related to the batteries you will need.

I agree that quite a few of them are a stretches, hence the reason I did not reference them on the quote. My concern with coal is not so much in CO2 or the "global warming" aspect or that it is even being mined, but rather in the manner in which it is being mined in my region. King Coal has been given free reign to gouge the mountains, fill the valleys & pollute the streams with little repercussion. And it's been allowed to do that due to payoffs from lobbyists to corporate schills in office who prey upon the fears of the people in this region. They claim the environmental regulations designed to prevent the devastation of mountain-top removal will costs jobs. When, in fact, the practice of MTR gained industry popularity as an alternative to more-labor-intensive-but-less-environmentally-destructive practice of traditional shaft mining. Mining as a profession has lowered it's workforce during a period of relaxed regulations during a period of time when coal use has increased....how? Through blowing the tops off of mountains and scrapping the fill from the seems.....it should be an afront to anyone, dem or rep, lib or con, who values in any manner the natural world....

[houndawg]

What a bunch of crapola. Blaming train crashes on coal fired power plants? ANY source of electricity is going to have these issues. What about the steel towers for the windmills and all the environmental issues with producing the steel? What about the fiberglass blades and the air pollution that comes from fiberglass production? What is the value of the birds and bats killed by windmills? What about the visual and noise pollution for those that live nearby? Wind mill parts are transported by truck and train so better add those train crashes and car crashes in for those too. And don't forget all the environmental damage related to the batteries you will need.

I agree that quite a few of them are a stretches, hence the reason I did not reference them on the quote. My concern with coal is not so much in CO2 or the "global warming" aspect or that it is even being mined, but rather in the manner in which it is being mined in my region. King Coal has been given free reign to gouge the mountains, fill the valleys & pollute the streams with little repercussion. And it's been allowed to do that due to payoffs from lobbyists to corporate schills in office who prey upon the fears of the people in this region. They claim the environmental regulations designed to prevent the devastation of mountain-top removal will costs jobs. When, in fact, the practice of MTR gained industry popularity as an alternative to more-labor-intensive-but-less-environmentally-destructive practice of traditional shaft mining. Mining as a profession has lowered it's workforce during a period of relaxed regulations during a period of time when coal use has increased....how? Through blowing the tops off of mountains and scrapping the fill from the seems.....it should be an afront to anyone, dem or rep, lib or con, who values in any manner the natural world....

It's called socializing the risk and privatizing the profit. Same principle as oil; tax the bejeezus out of the populace to support a military bigger than necessary, let that military assume the risks at taxpayer expense while the profits go to the oil companies.

If there were any justice Big Oil would be forced to provide free gasoline for life to every GI's family that served in Iraq.

[Appaholic]

Newsweek article about this issue....

Not in Anyone’s Backyard
Protect the environment or create renewable energy? A new bill shows they're far from the same thing.

You can't blame California for not being ambitious. In 2008, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger set the bold goal that by 2020, a third of the state's power would come from renewable sources. Not bad for the nation's most populous state and among the world's top 10 largest economies. At the time, it was a target miles ahead of any other state, and a fairly risky one at the beginning of a would-be global recession that would drive the Golden State deep into the red.

It's easy to see why Schwarzenegger thought it was possible. Earlier that year, oilman T. Boone Pickens characterized the Southwest U.S. as the Saudi Arabia of solar power, offering the choicest elevation and sun strength in the world for optimal power generation. On that, everyone agreed. Where to put the solar panels continues to be a different story. Everyone's for renewable energy, just not when solar or wind farms block their view or drive down property values.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/230681

[appmaj]

I am currently working on this project...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/busin ... ntemail1=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plenty of swamp land here for Solar Power

[HI54UNI]

I am currently working on this project...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/busin ... ntemail1=y" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Plenty of swamp land here for Solar Power

Interesting project. My employer buys some wind energy from FPL.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

If people would stop breeding like GD rabbits.......we wouldn't need to keep increasing energy capacity at breakneck speed.

How about you dont breed and leave us to do whatever the fu*k we want? Mind your own business and quit telling others how to live their lives.

Somebody needs to slap you and people like you, right in the face like the bitches you are.

[native]

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...

Well said!

[houndawg]

If people would stop breeding like GD rabbits.......we wouldn't need to keep increasing energy capacity at breakneck speed.

How about you dont breed and leave us to do whatever the fu*k we want? Mind your own business and quit telling others how to live their lives.

Somebody needs to slap you and people like you, right in the face like the bitches you are.

Because, at least in Montana, it results in too much inbreeding.