Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ohio Solar Energy Farm Slated for October Groundbreaking

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
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:21 PM
Original message
Ohio Solar Energy Farm Slated for October Groundbreaking
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 07:25 PM by jpak
http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/9210902-ohio-solar-e...

In Upper Sandusky, Ohio, about 60 miles north of capitol city, Columbus, construction of what will inevitably become the largest solar energy farm in the state is slated to begin in October.

Valued at $30 million, the farm will occupy 83 acres and once operational deliver enough solar-powered electricity to serve about 6,000 homes.

The solar farm will be built and operated by a subsidiary of Wrrstadt, Germany-based Juwi Solar Inc, founded in 1996. Called Wyandot Solar LLC, this American arm of Juwi will deliver the electricity produced by the solar farm to Columbus-based American Electric Power, or AEP, under a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) designed to fulfill Ohios renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for utilities of 25 percent of all energy sold in the state from alternative sources by 2025.

<snip>

Juwi began seeking bids from contractors to build its Wyandot solar farm in August. The 10.08 megawatt project will be located in Wyandot County, near the airport off County Road 44 and Ohio 199 in Salem Township. So far, no contractor has been announced for the 160,000-panel project, but Perrysburg-based First Energy Inc. has been hired to build the panels themselves.

<more>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is about 30 miles from me
Cool!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue sky at night Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Great News for those of us in OHIO.....
how do you day...."it's about time!", but really the laws are on the books mandating the percentage of power they have to derive from renewable sources. YES!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Sixty three acres?
Wow, sixty three acres of electronic waste.

Speaking of that stupid energy unit, the "home" that our "solar will save us" cultists are always putting out, what are the 6000 homes going to do at night.

Collect 63 acres of heavy metal batteries.

I don't think so. What they're going to do is to burn more and more and more and more and more and more and more dangerous natural gas, sort of like those folks in Maine.

And if they do put in 63 acres of batteries, you can be sure that there will be NOT ONE fundie here who will whine about the 63 acres of heavy metal waste the batteries will quickly become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Travis_0004 Donating Member (417 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. You seem to imply solar is the only option
Edited on Tue Sep-22-09 07:37 PM by Travis_0004
There are other options such as wind (which tends to be strongest at night), and nuclear, hydro, geothermal, which when combined can provide a solution. Energy use is highest during the day, so if we have lots of solar power, we can provide enough power for daytime use, and rely on other sources for night time use (wind nuclear, etc)

As a side note, Ohio seems like an odd spot to put it. (I live in Ohio)
Not as much sun, and energy prices are cheap. But if it can be done profitably in Ohio, it can be done profitably anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. For the record,I'm not involved in implying that solar is an option at all.
The more I look into the external costs of solar PV energy - and the more that science looks into solar PV energy - the less and less and less attractive it becomes.

It is a black hole, a toxic black hole, designed to suck money into meretricious consumer fantasies that are mostly involved in denial.

Now, you live in Ohio; I live in New Jersey, down wind from your coal plants, but that's hardly your fault.

The OP here was written by a fundamentalist - a fundamentalist is a person whose ideas are not subject to revision because of any amount of information. I regrettably, know this person quite well, a person who has been posting "world's largest solar" posts for well more than half a decade, and "solar will save us" for more than half a decade, since 2002, all the while scaremongering about the world's largest, by far, source of climate change free primary energy.

Note that the little whiny fundie doesn't give a rat's ass about the deaths from renewable energy in the 20th century, including the more than 200,000 people who died in a single night in 1975 from the Banqiao dam disaster in China, because his shtick consists entirely of selective attention.

How much dangerous fossil fuel waste was dumped, by the way, while this guy has been continuously chanting - cultishly - about how solar will save us.

I note, with due contempt, that the amount of dangerous fossil fuel waste dumped into the atmosphere since 2002 now is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 billion tons.

The number of fundie anti-nukes who understand numbers or more importantly the scale of numbers is zero. That said, one billion is the number of seconds in about 31 years. Thus if one dumped one ton a second of dangerous fossil fuel waste up until the present day from the time of Galileo's birth, one would only be able to produce 14 billion tons, a fraction of what has been dumped while dumb guys have been arguing here that "solar will save us."

Here they are prattling about 83 acres designed to produce the energy (they say) for 6000 homes, while not recognizing that the number of homes in Ohio is more than 4.51 million, including apartment dwellers.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Area%20Sheets/Area%20Shee...

The reason they are able to get away with these insufferably stupid claims about how solar will save us, and how it doesn't have a waste problem or an external cost problem, is precisely because solar PV is, was, and most likely continue to be a trivial form of energy in the life time of everyone now living, in spite of more than 50 years of prattling. Because it is trivial, it is easy to overlook its environmental, social, economic and other costs.

In case anyone has any question about when this prattling began, here is an ad from, um, 1954, trillions of tons of carbon dioxide ago:



I have been a strong supporter of nuclear energy - which is the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free energy ever since Chernobyl blew up, establishing for all time, the worst case, which is not worse than the last week of coal waste dumping.

I note that 100% of nuclear's critics do not apply the same criteria to any other form of energy - including the failed solar industry - that they apply to nuclear energy. The implication - that they declare by fiat, sort of like the way that Pat Robertson asserts by fiat that his interpretation of Jesus is the only thing that matters - that only nuclear energy need be perfect and all other forms of energy can kill at will.

I'm agnostic on geothermal, and my opinion of wind energy is lowering all the time, and I only favor it in very limited circumstances.

But nuclear energy is the gold standard. It is the only form of energy that evaluated all of its external costs before it was built, a point I noted elsewhere:

A Calculation: How Many Trillions of Dollars of Environmental Damage Will IGCC Coal Cost?

In fact, the external costs of nuclear energy have not been as high as expected by its inventors, including Enrico Fermi, expected it, although neither Fermi, nor Weinberg, nor Bethe, nor any other of the world class scientists who invented it expected.

The person who has the most to do with this happy state of affairs was Weinberg, inventor of the pressurized water reactor. At the time of his death at 91 years of age, Weinberg was noting that nuclear energy could not be made safer, not because it was dangerous, but because it was already safer than everything else, the representations of anti-nuke fundies aside. Weinberg's cleaning lady was undoubtedly better educated than the entire set of "solar will save us" fundies who write on this website.

But the requirement that only nuclear energy need be perfect is, again, absurd and in fact, toxic, since people die from this bizarre fundie calculation.

Nuclear energy need not be risk free to be better than everything else. It merely needs to be better than everything else, which it is.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. What a stupid post
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Sigh....
You know, if you weren't rolling drunk on the floor all the time, you'd still be an insipid ass, giggly boy.

I was kinda thinking when you were away that you and Mom blew the money on Madoff and Maderia, but sign...

Or is it the cadmium leaking off your roof every time it rains.

It is neurotoxic, you know.

You don't know?

Don't know shit from shinola about toxicity or neurology?

Why am I not surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-25-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. LOLOLOL!!!111
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Well...
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?d...

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 26 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.532.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlecBGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
19. this is hard to believe
Edited on Thu Sep-24-09 07:27 PM by AlecBGreen
Chernobyl is "the worst case, which is not worse than the last week of coal waste dumping."

So by that logic it would be better to have a once-a-week Chernobyl "incident" if it stopped the burning of coal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Sixty-three acres of radioactive nuclear waste would be SO much more welcome
in everyone's neighborhood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-22-09 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
7. I'm not sure that this is the best location for solar.
Ohio is pretty far north, and just about any location near the Great Lakes can be rather cloudy, particularly in winter. I know--I grew up near Lake Michigan. This project would probably generate more electricity if it were located in, say, Oklahoma.

I think that solar over all is a good idea in places with lots of sun, providing that the waste from manufacturing solar panels or solar thermal systems is cleaned up. I certainly hope that Juni is a responsible company that cleans up after itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. The location would be a decision for investors and utilities...
Edited on Wed Sep-23-09 04:59 PM by kristopher
The factor that is most important in a project like this is that the greatest demand usually occurs as a result of AC use on hot summer afternoons, which is when solar is at its best.

The issues related to pollution from production of solar are grossly exaggerated by our local unhinged proponent of nuclear energy. If there is a plant in your area, however, it is always good to keep them honest and ensure 1) adequate environmental protection measures are mandated, and 2) that they are being held to a requirement to meet those standards.

Unlike nuclear energy, production of solar power isn't inherently any more dangerous than other industrial endeavors. That doesn't mean it isn't an industrial endeavor and therefore it requires oversight to ensure that greed doesn't gain the upper hand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. A few years ago, the Energy Department had good maps showing the relative effectiveness
of PV and solar thermal.

Northern Ohio was not a good location for any solar according to the now missing map, AC needs, which usually peak later than peak solar, notwithdstanding. Delaware was better, being further south and less cloudy.

As to your other points, I am well aware of the problems with many industrial processes. That's why we have superfund sites and one reason why our manufacturing base has moved to places where serious environmental regulations either don't exist or are not enforced.

I'm well able to think for myself. I don't need NNadir or you to do my thinking for me, thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I wasn't "thinking for you"
I was just correcting an obvious mistake you made, ie thinking that the solar resource in Ohio isn't sufficient for a successful solar installation.
Your broad generalization in the current post that DOE maps show Northern Ohio is not a good location for solar means the basis of your false belief lies in misinterpreting the significance of the DOE solar resource map (which is still available online, I was looking at it a couple of weeks ago).

I'm also puzzled by your perception of the nature of our interaction with the environment, (ex. what superfund sites have to do with the discussion escapes me) but I'm not curious enough to wade through your writing in order to explore it.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Well I guess you are wrong
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Well, that's your opinion.
I remain unconvinced that Sandusky is a great site. I actually like PV, solar thermal, wind, geothermal and hydro. It is just that I think that location is everything with these renewables.

Unfortunately, and I did look again, the particular maps to which I referred in my earlier post are simply no longer available and have been replaced by maps that show fewer gradations of insolation and do not distinguish between sites at which PV would be better and those at which solar thermal would be better. The earlier map proved my point; the current one does not.

I used to enjoy posting on this board, but it has become incredibly polarized. Many posters who belong neither to the nuclear religion nor to the wind and solar religions seem to have left, or are simply not posting. Discussions, accordingly, have deteriorated here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-24-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. A resource map CANNOT show that distinction
since it is (as I indicated in my first response to you) a distinction that is based on economic considerations. If someone is building a solar PV plant then that is pretty solid evidence worth millions of dollars that your vague understanding is flawed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-23-09 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R
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 Wed Oct 01st 2014, 06:29 PM
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