Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Two Large Solar Plants Planned in California (800 Total MW of PV!)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 03:55 PM
Original message
Two Large Solar Plants Planned in California (800 Total MW of PV!)
Edited on Thu Aug-14-08 03:57 PM by OKIsItJustMe
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/business/15solar.html?hp
August 15, 2008

Two Large Solar Plants Planned in California

By MATTHEW L. WALD

Two California companies said Thursday that they would each build solar power plants that were 10 times bigger than the largest now in service, creating the first true utility-scale use of a technology now mostly confined to rooftop supplements to conventional power supplies.

The solar power will be sold to Pacific Gas and Electric, which is under a state mandate to get 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. The utility said that it expected the plants, both using photovoltaic technology, which turns electricity directly into sunlight, would be competitive with other renewable sources, including wind and solar thermal, which uses the sun’s heat to boil water. To date, the only large plants have been solar thermal.

Solar power is more costly than wind, watt for watt, experts say, but delivers the energy at a time of day when electricity prices are higher and is more valuable even if it is more costly.

OptiSolar, a company that has just begun to make thin-film solar panels — with a layer of semiconductor material thinner than a human hair on the back of a glass panel — will install 550 megawatts in San Luis Obispo County, in central California. And the SunPower Corporation, which uses crystalline cells, will build 250 megawatts in the same county. The OptiSolar plant will cover about nine square miles and the SunPower plant about 3.5, although the actual cell area will be smaller.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. 9 square miles?
That's a huge area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. And one nuclear plant
will provide at least three times that amount of energy round-the-clock, unaffected by cloud cover or sunset.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The part of SLO they're building in is pretty sunny
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. And what does a nuclear plant require?
10 maybe 20 acres? Compared to 5760 (640 acres per square mile) acres?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectricGrid Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ahhh no...
there is the small issue of needing water and another issue of radioactive waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Nuclear waste is a boogeyman to fool the ignorant.
Stored properly in deep geologically stable rock formations it's harmless, far more harmless thanwhat we're using now.

As for water, just build it on the coast. Use sea water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. Yes, a boogeyman... until an accident happens.
Then we (as taxpayers) are stuck cleaning up the toxic brew. No thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
54. If you use sea water you dramatically shorten the life span
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 09:33 PM by NobleCynic
of every system the water contacts. Corrosive stuff really. I don't know if it would add enough to the cost to change its economic viability, but it does add up. The salty air also corrodes the building shortening its lifespan.

Beyond that, additional nuclear power may become a necessary evil in the coming years. But as we expand our usage to replace coal we will drive the price if uranium up. Whether this may make renewables cost effective is yet to be seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. It will also produce waste that's radioactive for centuries.
I'd think, rather than spending $90 billion on Yucca mountain to store that waste, we could use the money to develop energy storage systems for solar power plants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Waste that can be dealt with
with ease by placing it in deep geological repositories. There's more radiation danger from coal plants than there is from properly stored nuclear material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. If you have to bury it in deep geological repositories....
...then it must be totally safe. :sarcasm:

I'm trying to think of exactly what sort of waste you have to bury from a solar or wind plant... hmmmm...

Oh that's right -- you don't. Outside of initial manufacturing, there is no waste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. No waste.
But not much power, either. The amount of power a nuclear power plant generates is staggering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #28
40. The cost of a nuclear power plant is staggering.
About $5 billion each, plus it takes over 10-20 years to build one.

And don't forget the $90 billion of taxpayer dollars for Yucca Mountain to store the waste in 'deep geologic repositories.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. Yucca Mountain, sacred first people's land.
We also have to continue ravaging the first peoples.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Land isn't sacred.
Religion is stupid, whether Christianity, Islam, or Native American. Modern science policy cannot be informed by superstition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Go ravage it then; screw the native people.
Edited on Sat Aug-16-08 01:14 AM by roody
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #56
58. They don't seem to be using it now. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #58
64. Well they should definitely use, use, use, and use it up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #18
33. "Outside of initial manufacturing"
Yeah, just dust that little fact under the rug and no-one will notice...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. Aboslutely no waste is created when building a Nuclear Plant.
Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. Like I've said repeatedly
I'd like to see an honest, side by side comparision. All you get around here from both sides is a lot of handwaving...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Then why don't you find some and post them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-14-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. That is a hell of a lot of habitat lost
Why do they build them a top parking lots?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectricGrid Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Who cares.. someone is going to have to take one for the team
I volunteer the desert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. speak for yourself
I volunteer your house...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Lol!
He'll volunteer the desert for this giant boondoggle, but heaven help if anyone wants to install a proven, safe, incredibly clean and efficient nuclear power plant anywhere within a thousand miles of his house!

Here's a French plant. France has some of the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and Europe's lowest electricity bills. Why can they do it and we can't?

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/04/23/areva_wideweb__470x350,0.jpg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. France doesn't have earthquakes
Here in California, they have a habit of building nuclear power plants on active faults.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Had a habit.
Just because somebody pulled a boner a while back doesn't mean we need to do it again. That said, clearly not the brightest moment in the industry's past. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Almost all of the West Coast has active faults.
Put the nuclear power plants somewhere else, we'll stick to wind and solar, thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. Like maybe in the desert?
You Californians are all NIMBYS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. No me!
Drop a nuke plant in my backyard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. Wind and solar just can't do it.
You underestimate the amount of energy a modern state needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. That's totally false.
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 02:29 PM by kristopher
A large number of highly qualified, extremely intelligent researchers that are extremely well informed about the energy needs of the US and the world say that your assertions regarding renewable energy are bullshit.

A well known policy expert that has extremely close contact with these researchers, as well as climate science researchers has recently spoken out:
There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.

I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.

I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.

That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.

I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.

What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.

America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.

We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org.We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.


http://blog.algore.com/2008/07/a_generational_challenge_to_re.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:31 PM
Original message
I'll believe it when I see it
With oil at $100+ a barrel and natural gas prices going through the roof, there is plenty of money to be made producing electricy. If solar and wind can do it cheaply and consistently, they will and certain people will become very, very wealthy in the process. Unlike in the past, the incentive is right in front of them. Now is the time for wind and solar to put up or shut up.

Care to make a prediction about how much power wind and solar will generate 5 years from now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
34. We will not wait for you, anymore. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Didn't ask you to wait
In fact, I have repeatedly said that I believe the best solution for producing electricy should be left up to the market. The market will sort out the winners from the losers--and I have no idea who they will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. "The Market" is nonsense
Which market it that? What are the "rules" governing "the market" you are referring to? Who wrote those rules? What is the purpose of those rules?

The market - a claim like that is a crock of ignorance for simple-minded fools. "Markets" are policy creations that can be designed to achieve any given goal. The "market" you seem to support is one created by and for fossil fuels.

We are going to change that shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #38
42. The Market
The market I am referring to is the free market, which does not exist because it was destroyed by people in both parties wanting to subsidize their pet solutions. However, to be clear, I'm not talking about letting corporations run free without any government intervention whatsoever. What I'd like to see is to implement taxes on all forms of pollution and carbon emissions to capture external costs. Then I'd eliminate all the subsidies, including hidden ones like the trillions of dollars oil gets via maintaining a military presence in the Middle East. The result would be a level playing field. Do you have a problem with level playing fields?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. There is no such thing.
Any policy program is going to create winners and losers. "What you'd like to see" is a mythical creation of idealists that simply doesn't, and can't exist. Your post illustrates the point perfectly: you endorse attempting to capture the externalities that YOU think are relevant. That is a value judgment, opening the door for all other value systems to seek equal representation at the bargaining table. That, in turn, sets the stage for a set of rules that favor the power elites because they have the means and the voice to affect the process in a disproportionate manner.

Market distortions are inevitable and appealing to the "free market" in the case of energy and climate change is nothing more than a call for business as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Very true
People like you ensure that it will never exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. That comment shows you don't understand the difference
That comment shows you don't understand the difference between normative and positive economics. Contrary to the illusion my greatness encourages - I didn't create the world. It is as it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Didn't say you did
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 05:02 PM by Nederland
I said people "like" you i.e., people looking for more subsidies.

Here is the reality of the world we live in. Currently fossil fuels receive billions if not trillions of dollars in subsidies. You are never, repeat, never, going to get anything like that for wind or solar. Now consider this: if your goal is to increase wind and solar generation, there is no economic difference between cutting the subsidy to fossil fuel created electricity by 1 cent a kwh and raising the subsidy to wind and solar by 1 cent a kwh. None. In both cases you are increasing the comparable competitiveness of wind and solar by 1 cent.

Politically however, there is a huge difference. On the one hand you are coming to the table with your hand out asking for money, and the other you are coming to the table with a plan to save the federal government billions of dollars. Which do you think will be easier in an era of deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars? Plus you get to call bullshit on all those Republicans that have been lying about the fact that they are all for the free market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. If they were direct subsidies, you'd have a point.
But unfortunately (as you noted in the comment about defense costs) they aren't, so your argument is less than persuasive.

Actually, I don't really want subsidies. I want direct investment in manufacturing, transmission and distribution infrastructure along with revision of our regulatory framework for power generation, transmission and distribution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #48
60. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Do we want to incur France's cleanup costs?

Uranium leak found at French nuclear plant


PARIS, France (AP) -- Uranium-bearing liquid has leaked from a broken underground pipe at a nuclear site in southeastern France, the national nuclear safety authority said Friday. It was the second leak discovered at a French site this month.

Experts are working to determine how much leaked uranium is present at nuclear company Areva's plant in the town of Romans-sur-Isere, the Nuclear Safety Authority said in a statement. Specialists are to work to clean up the site.

...Still, the announcement was a new blow for Areva after a similar incident last week, when a liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a factory in Tricastin in southern France. Areva said that problem "did not affect either the health of employees and local populations, or their environment."...

...The incidents have prompted questions about the still-secretive state-run nuclear industry, and the French government ordered a check of the groundwater around all the nuclear sites in France.
(18 July 2008)

...http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45956

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Finishline42 Donating Member (167 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. How many nuclear plants does France have? Who operates them?
I like how the right wing ideologues invent reasons to discredit wind, solar, and other renewables and they really like bringing up how France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear.

Why stop there, why not copy the French game plan? The have under 60 plants and we have just over a 100. But who built and runs their plants? They don't want to talk about that - because it is the French govt that built those plants and that's who runs them. They spend all their time doing everything they can to discredit anything our government does (well, except start wars over oil) instead of fixing or making sure what the government does it does as efficiently as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. France's nukes aren't as rosy a picture as they like to paint.
Nuclear contamination even threatens the twin sacraments of French life, wine and cheese. In May 2006, Greenpeace reported that low-level radioactive waste from a nuclear dumpsite had been found in the groundwater near the Champagne vineyards of eastern France. A report released earlier the same month on contamination from an older nuclear waste facility in La Hague, Normandy showed radioactivity more than seven times the European safety limit in local underground aquifers, which are used by farmers for their dairy cattle in a region renowned for its Brie and Camembert.

…Several studies have found elevated levels of childhood leukemia around the Normandy site.


(quote taken from an excerpt of a MotherJones article found here: http://www.whytraveltofrance.com/2008/07/31/is-exporting-nuclear-power-to-the-us-such-a-good-idea/ )

Why would anyone consider nukes to be a viable source of energy? They're costly and they're dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Government ownership is a mixed bag
Yes, the French now get cheap, clean electricity--but they also get a lack of transparency when it comes to safety.

A better idea is to have government subsidize construction, let private companies run them, and have the government inspect them. When the government acts as both the operator and inspector, you get stuff like what is posted above. Separation of powers is still a good idea, 200 years on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. I would love to have them government-run.
Please don't imply that by being pro-nuke I am a right-wing ideologue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElectricGrid Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #11
39. Do you want to know the funny LMAO thing????
I have Wolf Creek Nuke plant 40 miles from my house. In fact as I type the ele for my computer came from there, so shove off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
49. I think that's pretty nifty, actually.
Now lets build fifty more of the damned things and tell the petro-monarchs to shove off together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
55. As a desert inhabitant...
I agree. I volunteer the desert. You could pave most of the state with solar panels and Nevadans won't care. In this economy, we'll take anything to offset the loss of gaming and tourism dollars/jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #7
59. You ever been to San Luis Obispo county in California?
I think a good part of the movie "Sideways" was filmed there, Hearst Castle is there, and a lot of Steinbeck books take place there. It's along the ocean.

I think the area for the panels is pretty arid, but it's also one of the best spots for wildflowers in the state, and it has some of the state's only remaining native grassland.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tinrobot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Los Angeles is 5,000 sq miles
I bet you could find a lot of rooftops to place those solar panels in that area.

I'd certainly volunteer my roof.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Trying to compare the space requirements is the mark of either a charlatan
Edited on Fri Aug-15-08 12:45 PM by kristopher
Trying to compare the space requirements is the mark of either a charlatan or an idiot. How much environmental destruction is attached to mining for uranium?


One is distributed by nature, the other isn't.

One is clean by nature, the other isn't.

One leads to nuclear weapons by nature, the other doesn't.

One is extremely expensive by nature, the other isn't.

One leads to long term energy security by nature, the other doesn't.



"uranium, is widely distributed in the earth’s
crust and the ocean in minute quantities, with the exception of
concentrations rich enough to constitute ore. Uranium is mined
both at the surface and underground, and after extracted it is
crushed, ground into a fine slurry, and leeched in sulfuric acid.
Uranium is then recovered from solution and concentrated into
solid uranium oxide, often called ‘‘yellow cake,’’ before it is
converted into hexafluoride and heated. Then, hexafluoride vapor
is loaded into cylinders where it is cooled and condensed into a
solid before undergoing enrichment through gaseous diffusion or
gas centrifuge...

Starting at the mine, rich ores embody concentrations of
uranium oxide as high as 10%, but 0.2% or less is usual, and most
uranium producers will consider mining ores with concentrations
higher than 0.0004%. A majority of the usable ‘‘soft’’ ore found in
sandstone has a concentration between 0.2% and 0.01%, and
‘‘hard’’ ore found in granite has a lower uranium content, usually
about 0.02% or less. Uranium mines are typically opencast pits, up
to 250 m deep, or underground. A third extraction technique
involves subjecting natural uranium to in situ leaching where
hundreds of tons of sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and ammonia are
injected into the strata and then pumped up again after 3–25
years, yielding uranium from treated rocks.


Mined uranium must undergo a series of metallurgical
processes to crush, screen, and wash the ore, letting the heavy
uranium settle as the lighter debris is funneled away. The next
step is the mill, often situated near the mine, where acid or alkali
baths leach the uranium out of the processed ore, producing a
bright yellow powder, called ‘‘yellowcake,’’ that is about 75%
uranium oxide (whose chemical form is U3O8 ). In the cases where
ores have a concentration of 0.1%, the milling must grind 1000 ton
of rock to extract 1 ton of yellowcake. Both the oxide and the
tailings (the 999 ton of remaining rock) remain radioactive,
requiring treatment. Acids must be neutralized with limestone,
and made insoluble with phosphates (Fleming, 2007; Heaberlin,
2003)....
- Benjamin K. Sovacool "Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey"
Energy Policy 36 (2008) 2940– 2953

Next time we can discuss the the by-products of enrichment and what France does with their wastes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
36. If you want to compare two things
...it is useful to actually analyze both of them, don't you think?

I see in your post a very long explanation of the process involved in mining uranium, but I see nothing detailing the process involved in producing a solar cell. I'd be curious to see just how toxic that process is, and just how many tons of toxic waste is produced in order to create a 1GW solar array. Then we could, you know, actually compare...

I'm not saying you are wrong, I just would actually like to see a comparison between the two energy sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. You've seen the comparisons
That's why you are resorting to absurd mantras such as 'solar-takes-too-much-space'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
13. Let the games begin
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jtrockville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 12:46 PM
Response to Original message
23. Why are they forbidden to talk about the price?
Maybe because they're bargains, compared to nukes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our third quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-15-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
35. Good news, thanks for posting. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
57. Smaller and closer to the point of consumption
is better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #57
61. Define "better"
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-16-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. more efficient
Electricity loses power travelling over distance. I don't know if it loses watts, amps, or something else. Someone here does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC