Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookSolar plant builders decry freeze
Federal study of environmental effects comes with a moratorium on new project applications
Wed, Jun 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)
The federal government will do a sweeping study of the environmental effects of solar power plant development on public land in the Southwest, in part to speed up approval of solar projects.
Sun Archives
- Nevada to be part of solar study (5-30-2008)
- Energy all around us (5-11-2008)
- State says 'wait' on solar system rentals (3-21-2008)
But for developers, the study may be a fast track to the slow lane. While the Bureau of Land Management, which controls 67 percent of Nevada land, including many rural areas where solar arrays would be located, completes a lengthy study, the agency will impose a moratorium on new applications to put solar panels on federal land. Developers will have to wait at least 22 months — until at least spring 2010 — for the results of the study.
The BLM says the moratorium is needed because it has a backlog of pending applications and many of the requests are highly complicated.
Solar developers say the lag of nearly two years will hurt.
“That immediately is going to slow the momentum of a growing economy of solar business in the state of Nevada,” said Chris Brooks, director of the renewable energy division of Bombard Electric, which installed solar panels at Nellis Air Force Base. “Twenty-two months will drive businesses out of existence.”
Those in Nevada could be particularly hard-hit because 87 percent of its land is federally controlled, including the 67 percent that is BLM land; the other 20 percent is managed by other federal agencies such as the Air Force, the Energy Department and the National Park Service.
Brooks and other solar energy insiders said the moratorium, especially coupled with uncertainty in Congress over long-term tax credits for solar development, would discourage solar manufacturers from locating in the Southwest.
“If you delay the process much ... industry might go to another nation,” Brooks said. “If you’re going to make the process more cumbersome in all six states where solar is most viable, there is absolutely no sense in locating manufacturing” in Nevada.
And that means lost potential jobs, according to a solar industry insider who asked to remain anonymous because he must work with the BLM on future projects.
“It’s really bad for the solar industry and it’s really bad for Nevada,” he said. “It means delays in jobs, delays in economic development, increased reliance on natural gas, electric power. What’s the upside?”
The BLM has received 125 applications — including 23 in Nevada — to use federal land for solar plants.
The oldest of the 125 was filed more than three years ago, according to Katherine Gensler, manager of regulatory and legislative affairs with the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Gensler and Linda Resseguie of the BLM said delays on some of those applications are due to developers new to the solar industry not meeting BLM deadlines.
Gensler said BLM is so backed up with pending applications that the agency couldn’t have begun analyzing new requests before the study is completed anyway. Still, the moratorium has the industry buzzing.
The Nevada applications, 11 in Nye County and 12 in Clark County, would involve 211,000 acres of federal land and could produce 15,000 megawatts, more than twice the peak summer load in Southern Nevada. The 125 applications nationwide, if approved, would power 20 million American homes, according to the BLM.
Gensler said most of the Nevada applications were filed in 2007.
Resseguie said many developers expressed concern over the moratorium at a meeting Monday in Riverside, Calif., where the BLM took public comment on the scope of the study. Another meeting was scheduled for Tuesday night in Barstow, Calif.
The Las Vegas meeting is at 6 p.m. today at the Clarion Hotel and Suites, 325 E. Flamingo Road. For information, visit www.solareis.anl.gov.
“Obviously it (the moratorium) took some companies by surprise and is going to affect their business plans,” Resseguie said. “Some of the companies ... are more affected by our decision than others.”
Gilbert Cohen, vice president of engineering and operations for Acciona Solar Power, the company that built a large solar plant in Boulder City, said his company is one of those hurt by the moratorium. It could keep Acciona from filing applications for at least two large-scale solar projects in Southern Nevada, although he couldn’t estimate how much that might cost the company.
“It’s the cost of not doing business,” he said.
The BLM in 2006 completed a similar study of the effects of wind farm development in the Midwest. The agency did not, however, halt applications during that process, which began in 2003. Resseguie said that was because wind resources were geographically dispersed and there were no multiple applications for any single location, as there are in California for solar plants.
She said the BLM may in the future hold competitive auctions for parcels with multiple solar applications.
But in the meantime, the freeze could place a dollar value on applications filed, which may drive partnerships and deal-making in the industry, Resseguie said.
And the limited number of active applications moving through the BLM queue could drive up prices, said Tom Fair, renewable energy executive for Sierra Pacific Resources, Nevada Power’s parent company. He called the 125 existing applications “a bit of a land rush.”
Another concern is that over the course of the 22-month moratorium, the fast-moving solar industry may develop new technologies that won’t be analyzed by the BLM in its study, he said.
Discussion: 52 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Woman arrested in fatal stabbing at Bally’s
- Halverson’s condition improving after husband’s attack
- DMV employee arrested in Las Vegas on federal bribery charges
- How Palin’s speech divides America
- Attacks on media may fail
- FDIC takes over Silver State Bank of Henderson
- Change the chant
- Is this the rise of the Mountain West?
- FAA releases audio recording in fatal plane crash
- Nevada among 8 states with high foreclosure rate
Blogs
Elsewhere
UFC 88 Results
Sports: UNLV
LIVE GAME BLOG: Second half splurge propels Utah past UNLV, 42-21 (UPDATED)
Kevin Kruger gets tryout in Milwaukee
Culture Blog
T. Fox returns to the Strip
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Carl Edwards caption contest (3 Comments)
Sports: UNLV
Athlon ranks UNLV basketball at No. 24
Culture Blog
Las Vegas Philharmonic will back Placido Domingo
Sports: UNLV
UNLV hires Manarino to coach softball
Calendar
- Harvest Festival at the Cashman Center (10 a.m. to 5 p.m.)
- Noche Nortena (7 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Cher (7:30 p.m.)
- Jeff McBride Magic at the Edge at Palace Station (7:30 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
One step forward - two steps back; typical Fed approach.
Do I smell Big Oil here?
TEXEX,
You are wrong there, when you say ONE step forward and TWO steps back.
Its ONE step forward, and TEN steps back, and of course you are correct in your assumption, IT IS big oil complicating matters.
From the outside, looking in from a far off land of the midnight sun.
I don't want solar panels on 211,000 acres of public land. I like the desert and don't think we should have to give it all up so we can pay the solar industry for our power. There are plenty of rooftops and disturbed lands in Nevada. Plus, desert plants store C02 and scraping them up for these ugly solar panels will only increase the carbon in the air which will warm the planet more.
This is not about clean energy, it is about money. Give tax breaks to those who use home solar energy. Give tax breaks to make the cost come down for retail giants. It is easy to make do-it yourself prices come down, but this has alway been about big profits for big energy. Let's hope we can stop this "green" assault on our public land. There's really nothing green about it. The only green involves $$$...
Sunlizard,
I do believe that you have been out in the sun too long, according to your comment. Puzzles me as too how you came to the conclusion that solar panels would only increase CO2 emissions. Did you not learn that at school, that solar panels DO NOT emit CO2, or have you been brainwashed by the fossil fuel companies. This is about clean energy, and I would rather pay for solar, or wind power than fossil fuel power. Wake up from your dream world, and keep out of the sun, its affecting your brain.
We should be building more of those housing projects that have solar panels on their rooftops -- I know there is one in Vegas. If we just build big solar farms out in the desert and transfer the electricity over hundreds of miles of power lines, we waste a lot of energy and give more profits to new energy companies. Business as usual. I say bring down the price of small solar panels for home use. I don't want my public lands giving breaks to some out-of-state company to build solar farms! Won't help my rural town any.
We need to relocalize.
It is about money.
Even with the megabucks from Uncle Sam and the laws that require renewable energy, solar and wind is so expensive that it will never be able to compete with coal, nuclear or natural gas.
Unless it is force down our throats.
If they do that and we are paying $1,000 a month in utility bills then I hope we throw out the bums.
Lol about solar panels on houses.
It cost about $20,000 to have that system.
It will take about 20 years to break even and then the system will need to be replaced.
Sure lets take money out your paycheck so the government can turn away and give you a discount on the solar power system.
Udd,
You missed my point. I am talking about the plants in the desert that would be scraped up as well as the soil crusts. CAM plants. Look up Crassulacean acid metabolism. Of course the panels won't increase C02, but scraping up the land to place them in the desert will. Yes there is life out there. Other problems will be water rights(water is needed to wash dust off panels), grazing rights, recreation, etc. Enough to stop this assault on public lands. This will not just happen.
I guess now that anyone who likes open space is now working for the oil companies. Not working for the oil companies, just thinking of ways to use green energy that do not destroy our open space. Sounds like Udd is a chump for big power companies. What an ignorant individual. Do you actually think covering the desert with solar panels will stop the use of oil? Do you actually think the climate will cool if we cover the desert? Science says the climate is pretty changed already. We do not have to destroy our open space so a few big power companies can get rich. Don't be such a chump for big energy! There are also a lot of people living out in the desert who do not want their homes destroyed so a few people can feel good about themselves. We can make a transition to clean energy and do it in a way that is green and not an assault on our plant and wildlife. Don't be such a narrow minded fool. Get some panels for your roof and turn off some appliances. Use a swamp cooler instead of an AC. Green energy is not green when it destroys so many natural resources.
jf:
Duh! Do you read? I tried to go solar and was informed that it would cost me $40k to get partly off the grid! I am saying that we need to give federal breaks to solar-panel companies instead of oil companies, to bring down the price for private citizens.
Do you think the price of electricity will be low when those solar farm companies sell you power shipped hundreds of miles away from my rural county? No, it will be astronomical.
And, I think it will take 20 years to get solar farms online anyway, enough to replace oil/coal.
Point is, I cannot afford to get solar on my house. Let's go ahead and burn the coal up. It's cheap and already online. We can't stop the climate from changing anyway.
Is this really about oil? Is there a solar powered car? Do you guys actually think that plastering the last open space (and killing a lot of wildlife) with solar panels will stop the demand for oil? No, there are still no solar powered cars. Things like public transportation, conservation,using less energy are up to the individual. Don't depend on the federal government or a big power company to meet your feel good energy needs. These solar farms will be stalled for years. So it's up to you Udd. Stop driving. Put a windmill in your back yard. Get rid of that dish washer. Get a solar rechargeable battery for your laptop. What are you doing to back up your strong words, uddeboda?
Suddenly, the Greens are pissy about all the Red Tape involved in creating a new power plant??? Boo F'ing Hoo!
We've killed off the ability to creat Nat Gas plants, Clean Coal plants or Nuclear Plants in Nevada. So why are we going to cry a river for the Solar lobby????
Try getting rid of the Environmental Impact Studies (created by the same extremists who are now pushing wind and solar), the Endangered Species Act (by the people who put Polar Bears on the list just to prevent coal plants in the US) and every other nonsensical paperpushing rule at the BLM or DOI. The need for energy is GROWING!!!! We need to INCREASE the amount of energy (including the politically correct stuff) faster than the bureaucrats can process it.
If Harry Reid really gave a rats @ss about his state, he would stop demogoguing the oil industry and let us drill off-shore and in the barren tundra of Alaska. And Harry would be lobbying to get the Red Tape removed for new energy plants in Nevada. Unfortunately, Harry cares more about extremists in NY/DC/LA/Bos than LV. He helped block a new clean coal plant in NV which would sell power to CA and create more jobs here (union jobs, Harry!!!!) and his refusal to allow a vote on drilling for new oil and nat gas is guaranteeing that all of us here in Nevada will be paying $5 for unleaded by the end of the year. Harry don't care. Harry doesn't buy gas. Harry doesn't listen to Searchlight. Harry listens to K Street.
Oh, and 'Sunlizard', the internet you are using cannot be powered by 'solar rechargeable batteries'. You might want to just admit that your dream society doesn't exist. And if it did, most Americans wouldn't want to live in it. We did that - in the 19th Century.
Solar thermal plants require large sources of water.
I guess they are planning to build some pipelines, too.
Nye County Local
Yet another “ostrich” with your head firmly stuck in the sand, carry on using coal, because its cheap. It is not cheap, it will follow the price of oil, up and up, and up, and when the subsidies are taken away from the fossil fuel companies, the price will be even higher. If you were given a price of $40k, then you were given a rip off price, and solar energy prices will only be cents more expensive, don’t believe everything you are fed by the fossil fuels companies. Of course they want to continue with coal, oil, tar sands etc etc, it makes huge profits for them and their buddies in Washington.
Sunlizard.thanks for your comments. First, I am not a chump for big energy companies, and never have been.
Before I reveal where I live, here are a few facts. All my countries energy comes from hydro, nuclear, CHP plants, solar and wind. We use no fossil fuels for our energy production. Every city, town and large village have their own CHP plant, using household waste, forest waste and industrial waste to produce energy and electricity. I received hot water piped underground to my house, and my electricity is wind generated on average just under 6 cents Kwh. At these prices I don’t need solar panels or my own wind turbine.
What am I doing, well, I drive less, use the local train more, which is powered by green electricity. I am satisfied to continue to use green electricity, even if my years usage is about 2500 Kwh. I drive less because our fuel is about $10 a gallon. Any clues as to where I live, the Land of the Midnight Sun
JFNANCE,
Renewable energy, solar, wind is so expensive it will never be able to compete with coal or gas. Well my energy is wind powered and it costs on a yearly average only 6 cents a Kwh. I don’t find that SO expensive, do you.???
Udde:
You may have a turbine on top your house or something near it.
Here are reasons why wind is so expensive:
1) Wind farms have to be built on large vast acreage of land. One has to chose to either build on public pristine park land or purchase land from private entities which is usually expensive.
2) Winds farms are in remote areas and it cost a lot of money to build tranmissions lines to get the power to urban areas. Usually wind farms do not generate enough energy to justify the huge cost of building tranmissions lines.
3) To build and maintain the turbines onces needs to build a vast network of roads. Usually turbines are located in mountains or hills in remote areas. This is a costly affair to build the road networt in tough remote areas.
Here are some other issues:
1) Wind is not predictable and not available 24/7. So it can not be core source of energy. We need core sources of energy that are 24/7 unless we are willing turn the lights only when the wind blows. Storing large amounts energy in batteries is very very expensive.
2) Wind usually does not blow during the hot summer months. So it will not help with peak demand with is the driving force in setting energy capacity needs.
3) There are not many places were there are cheap land, wind blows a lot and transmission lines near by. For this reason, we will not see wind play a critical part in renewables. Solar thermal and earth thermal are much more likely. Solar is more expensive then nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas, but it is cheaper than wind.
bpjam, you are one of those conservatives who wants it all. A TV in every bathroom? No, that lifestyle will be history. Your stale conservative rants will be a thing of the past when your energy is rationed. I remember when we did just fine without the Internet and could live without it. It's over rated anyway. Our energy needs are growing with your conservative wasteline. Stop being such a d**k and turn a few switches off. The desert won't get platsered with solar panels because it will just cost too much...NOT becuase I don't want it...LOL. I love listening to these Fox educated numbnuts!!
fair enough Udd, I just hope you are willing to sacrifice some of alaska because I don't think my home should be sacrificed just to save yours. Solar panels do not even work in extreme heat which would make Alaska a good energy producer for half the year...
"Sunlizard":
If and when energy is rationed (an asinine concept, imo) = it will be because of the eco-facist liberal and their choking, gagging and constipating supplies of available energy now, to FORCE (socialism or communism, you pick?) we all to abandon what we CAN do.
NOT being all we can be IS the liberal way...........
JFNANCE
First, I do not have a turbine on top of my house, nor do I live near to them, yet strange as it may seem to you, my energy costs exactly what I said it costs. What does your cost, and where does it come from.
“Reasons” why wind is so expensive, you sound like a salesman from the fossil fuel companies, showing all the benefits of coal and the huge huge problems with wind turbines. I wont go thru all your negative aspects of wind turbines, other readers can look at your posting above. Everything is expensive according to you, wake up you fool.
Perhaps you can explain to me and other readers, just how ONE Kwh produced by the wind blowing is more expensive than ONE Kwh from burning coal. If the wind, which is free, then coal, well, they must be giving it away + coupons, and don’t come with the old arguments about more transmissions lines, new roads.
The more I read your comments the more I see how you have been brainwashed by the fossil fuel companies, and go through life with blinkers.
SUN LIZARD,
You missed it there, no its not Alaska, try 15 deg longitude East
You guys should all watch "WASTED" on the Green Planet Channel. Just turning off a light bulb or two, turning off your tv (not just sleep mode), riding a bike to work or public transport, even not taking a shower every day unless absolutely nessecary (like weekends when you don't go anywhere), will help lower the consumption of fuel and water.
For those who think that all life is impossible without fossil fuels, there are ways to reduce its consumption. How about tankless water heaters? How about getting rid of those huge gas-guzzlers (SUV's and trucks) when you drive in the city? What could possibly be the justification for that? A small sub-compact that get's 35-40 mph is a much more sensible alternative. Better yet, stop building huge Casino's and gigantic condo's, and invest that money into a tram and light rail system. Everyone benefits from that. Metal wheels last a lot longer that rubber tires. And with hydro-electric power from Hoover Dam (so long as it has water!), it has a reasonably clean energy source. The dam is already there, no need to build a new one. So maybe the lights of Las Vegas will not glow so brightly. Better than not at all!
Without a plan to utilize renewable energy, we will be facing a shortage sooner than later. We have become a fossil-fuel energy based society, and without the supplement of renewable recources, this planet's standards of living will not survive much longer.
With better management of the fossil fuels, and the addition of solar and wind power, and each person taking more responsibility for his or her own personal lifestyle, we may be able to leave our grand-children a planet worth living on.
And for NVMakz, there is a LOT of difference between Socialism and Communism. In Communism, the government owns everything. In Socialism, the government works FOR the good of the people (what a concept!). In a Socialistic country, you may pay more taxes, but you get good roads, good public transport, free health care, including the drugs that are needed, and free education for everyone. They are more concerned about their own people (which is as it should be), than going abroad to make others into our clones. Can you imagine the whole world consuming the amount of energy that we do, all at once?
The short sightedness of our politicians never ceases to amaze me. First, they allow all our jobs to be exported to other countries, and then, they try to put a stop to an industry that could put us in the fore-front again.
Udde where do you live?
OK udde....then just use wind power.
When the wind is not blowing, and it is 120 outside, are you going to jump on a bike to power your A/C?
Udde I think your 6 cents story is BS. You should give more details, like the name of the power company. Is 100% of your power wind?
Where do you live (just city, state)?
Rosalinde,
A very interesting a good article you wrote. You obviously know what you are writing about, and that fossil fuels will eventually be the downfall of this planet, UNLESS!!!
And you are correct about Socialism, which is precisely the way after the 2nd WW my country took the steps of being a social democratic country, and things are as you quoted.
JFNANCE, Like I said to SunLizard I live in the Land of the Midnight Sun, Longitude 15 degs East.
When you have checked that out, you will see that I do not rely on fossil fuels for my energy, and the wind is always blowing somewhere, being a “maritime” country. As we never ever have 120 outside I have no need for A/C. SIX cents for a Kwh is not BS as you like to phrase it. By now you will have figured out where I live.
I think your wind power plan might work.
All we need to do is move the entire country to the north pole or south pole in the Land of the Midnight Sun.
In the continental USA, most land areas are not suitable for wind turbines because the wind does not blow hard enough for a significant amount of time to justify the cost of the wind turbines.
I guess we could have wind farms in various regions and then shift power around a transmission grid when one farm does not have wind.
That would mean very large turbine farms to handle mutli-state region loads and massive investment in even more transmission lines far beyond what is need to support local wind farms.
Also currently, there are no tranmissions lines that go across the Rocky or Applachian mountain ranges.
You six cents might work in the arctic range on a small scale were the wind never stops blowing but it would not even be close to the cost of wind energy in the US for supplying energy on a large commerical scale.
If it did then we would have already be using wind energy.
JFNANCE,
Our wind farms do work, both inland and at the coast. Germany are world leaders when it comes to wind farms, they had last year 38.5 Twh of energy, and a new project in the east of Germany, ie inland, is being run by GE of the USA, so perhaps they are having problems in the states so they come over to Europe to supply and build. The vast extra power lines will cost the German household an extra $25 per household. Like you say there are no power lines over the Rockies, anyway I dont think the Pacific states would want them anyway, "exporting" their energy to the mid west??. You say my 6 cents works on a small scale, its not exactly small, anyway the larger the farms are the cheaper the energy becomes. The reason why the USA does not have significant wind farms across the country, is because of the propaganda put out by the fossil fuels companies and their lackies in Washington, as they say coal is clean and good for the economy, look at your economy today, not all that good is it?
I know that I smelled something reading your articles and that smell was not coming from roses.
You saying we should look at Germany.
Below is a lot of articles listing the problems that Germany is having with its wind projects.
Biggest flaw in wind power is that it can not be relied to generate power on demand. Even farms in the ocean can not be relied on. If there is a storm then the farm has to be shut down. Storms are not predictable.
This makes it very impratical as an energy source.
Wind energy can only be a supplmental power source.
The below articles state these points:
1) Because wind power farms are not available 24/7 Germany can not use it as a core source of power
2) When a wind farm is not producing energy it dramatically increase the cost of power from that farm
3) The german government is having to heavily subisizing the cost with government funds to keep the cost down
4) The Germans are now embarking on an agressive plan in building coal-fired plants to help with its energy needs
5) There is a large investment in building power lines to get the wind power from the farms to the people
6) Maintaince of winds farms are high cost in of labor and parts due to turbines breaking down much more than expected.
Here is an article saying the Germany is having to heavily subsidized the Wind industry to keep the cost to the consumer being out of control.
It says, "The only problem–a big one–is that wind energy is very expensive. Extracting one kilowatt/hour of energy from the wind costs four times as much as using fossil fuels. "
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_03/uk...
http://www.wind-energie.de/en/
Here is an article by the BCC on problems with German wind projects. It says, "Yet there is a lingering question-mark over the cost of all this, and whether building so many wind turbines truly makes economic sense."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4944...
Here is an article that claims that the German government is trying to hide the try cost of wind energy.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/G...
Here is an article by a German Power company.
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/e...
It states, "1) Wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant"
Also, this article says that Germany now is a plan to build 26 new coal-fire power plants.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...
Here is another article questioning the cost of wind power:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn...
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html...
Well done JFNANCE, you have been busy raking up all sorts of articles about Germany, and despite their plans to build more coal plants, their record with wind turbines is still very impressive.
This following statement.
It says, "The only problem–a big one–is that wind energy is very expensive. Extracting one kilowatt/hour of energy from the wind costs four times as much as using fossil fuels.
This was from an article from 1999, 9 yrs ago. At that time the a big wind turbine had a capacity of 500mw, so obviously wind power may have cost 4 times more than fossil fuel did at that time. In late 1999 Germany saw the fall of their domestic el prices by 60% from 16.1 to 6.4 cents Kwh. Fossil fuels were very cheap at that time, whereas today the price of electricity from fossil fuels in Germany may well be up around 20 cents Kwh. At the same time the wind turbines are now as large as 7500 mw, more efficient and able to withstand winds of 270 kms/hr.
I still state that my electricity is 6 cents at source per Kwh, perhaps only a couple of % dearer that hydro and nuclear.
INo matter what. Wind and solar are limited because they are not energy on demand sources. One is dependent on mature nature for those sources to produce energy and mother nature can be unpredictable.
That makes these sources not valuable to masses that need energy.
If they rely on wind power and mature nature has storm that requires turning off the wind farm then one has to have back up sources.
Just to have a back source just for those situations would be very expensive to build and maintain.
So that means wind can only be use in a very limited way. Probably can only be use at 10% source and just for supplemental purposes.
JFNANCE,
So I assume by your latest posting, that it will be business as usual for the USA. Continue to build the projected 150 coal fired power stations, if the get the go ahead, and continue to pollute even more. The USA refused to sign the Kyoto treaty, and will most likely refuse the sign the next treaty in 2012. It is still a few years away, and we still dont know what the new President will decide. I honestly dont think he will rock the boat too much, wouldnt want to affect the USA economy. Still we shall see, and thanks for your replies, its always interesting to see the other side of the problem.
In the USA, there are tons of companies lined up to do solar and wind projects.
They are just waiting for Congress to open the purse strings so that the flood of the subisized green bucks flow into their pockets.
Solar and wind are too expensive plus they are not 24/7 energy sources. Power companies will only build these projects if congress forks out the cash so they can make a profit.
The power companies across the country are fighting to build coal plants. It is an uphill battle.
Like you say, there are a lot of pockets waiting for some kind of subsidy, and the same works the other way, a lot of congressmen also on the take. One thing that puzzles me, is, over here in the UK, when an MP is on the take, whether it be a "donation" he had forgot to mention, or perhaps just a hand out, or his daughter got a new flat somewhere, the newspapers in the UK are very good a digging, and these crooked politicians do get the kick. Does this happen in the States.
JFNANCE
I would just like to connect to one of your links, The Heartland website, and an article by
Sterling Burnett, who is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, an organization that has received over $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. Need I say more about this kind of critic from organisations that are funded by the fossil fuel industries.
I am OK with that as long we also do not quote any site that will get financially rewarded by promoting wind energy like companies that build wind farms.
The present global annual demand for primary energy arrives as solar energy in the deserts alone within 5.7 hours of sunshine.
The Southwestern US has a solar resource that is better than the oil fields of the Middle East.
A solar power plant by the size of Los Angeles can supply the entire electricity for the entire US.
Stating that renewable energy might be too costly is cynical in the face of the victims of climate change and ignoring the real costs of dirty coal and subsidized nuclear.
It is mind-boggling that administration wants to thwart the best energy resource we have instead of supporting it with everything we have.
All background info you need you can find here:
1) A Solar Grand Plan, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...
"... The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. ..."
2) Renewable Energy Atlas of the West, http://www.energyatlas.org/contents/defa...
And this is how it works:
3) Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) http://www.trecers.net/index.html
The BLM has a backlog of 125 applications? Well, employ 125 people and get the job done in a few months. Time is of the essence.
Corban,
Did you know that every TWO seconds enough solar power hits this planet to supply energy for the whole world for ONE year, every TWO seconds, but promise not to tell the dirty coal industries and power plants
I was talking to a friend, who lives in a BIG house in the south of Sweden, and when I say big, he use to get through 5 cu meters of oil to heat and supply hot water every year. With our high prices it was costing him about $8333 a year. Two years ago he installed a GSHP, drilling down about 140 meters. The total cost including the drilling, pump, indoor unit, hot water tank etc, ready to go, and removal of existing oil burner and tank, cost about $33000. After 2 years running, his heating and hot water now costs only $2000 a year, and heating oil today would have cost him about $2250 a cu meter X 5 equals $11250. So you can see the huge advantages of installing a GSHP, within a few short years the investment is paid back, and NO CO2 emissions. Are these kinds of GSHP available in the USA for private homes, and does anybody have any costs, and any experience of them.
This are the reasons why solar thermal plants are expensive.
1) They require large tracts of land in remote areas.
2) Since they will be in remote areas you have to spend a ton of money to build tranmission lines to get the power to the urban areas
3) Solar thermal plants require lots of water. So if you put them in the desert then you have to build water pipelands
4) Solar plants are only operational for part of the day and on many days they are not running at all. These cause the cost of the energy to go up for the capital cost is spread over a lower number of units as oppose to a coal plant that runs 24/7
The biggest problem with solar is that it can not produce energy on demand. One is totally dependent on mother nature. Also it can only run during parts of the day.
Storing energy in batteries is extremely expensive.
For this reason of it not being a power on demand source, solar will never be able be a core source of energy. It may be able to supplement the power grid at around 10% to 20%.
Like I mentioned in my previous posting, GSHP, are they being use in your area, if so give me some feed back.
GSHP are not being used by home owners in Nevada.
There is a push for commerical geothermal plants in the northern part of state.
There is an issue on how, when and who will pay the cost of building the transmission lines.
There is a discussion to build several coal plants in the north to justify the cost of building those transmissions lines.
If GSHPs are not being used by homeowners, then WHY??
Perhaps the homeowners have been told they are too expensive and are not worth installing, and that the payback time is 20 years. I have read all this before on different sites which are obviously the fossil fuels comapnaies who are putting out false information. Just read my information above. This was a very big GSHP, for a very large house, but prices here start at about $15k complete and ready to go. Regarding the proposed coal fired power plants up and around Ely, they will NEVER be built, too too much objections and emissions. If Vegas wants more power then you will have to build your own power station, if you can ever get permission to do so.
I think you need a lot of land to have a GSHP system. All the houses in Vegas are built on tiny lots. We have tiny front yards and tiny back yards.
There are two reasons for this:
1) Maintaining lawns is expensive because of a lot of water issue
2) The developers make more money on tiny lots and they own the zoning boards.
"Regarding the proposed coal fired power plants up and around Ely, they will NEVER be built, too too much objections and emissions. If Vegas wants more power then you will have to build your own power station, if you can ever get permission to do so."
You might be right on this point. Senator Reid is very much against the coal plants. If Nevada does not get those plants then we will be really really screwed over in about 10 year to 20 years. Solar and wind, as I have said above, can not provide 24/7 on demand energy. Plus they are more expensive than coal.
So, perhaps we should buy private energy generating systems. When everybody else's house is dark, at least we will be able to keep the food cold in the frig.
Las Vegas might become a ghost town if the above happens.
JFNANCE said...
I think you need a lot of land to have a GSHP system. All the houses in Vegas are built on tiny lots. We have tiny front yards and tiny back yards.
There are two reasons for this:
1) Maintaining lawns is expensive because of a lot of water issue
2) The developers make more money on tiny lots and they own the zoning boards.
Sorry to say against you, you do not need a lot of land to have a GSHP, IF you decide to have to deep well type. A drilling rig comes, no bigger than a small agri tractor, and together with a compressor, about the size of a very small camper, they drill a hole about8" in diam down to a level depending on the unit to be installed in the house, usually a bit over 100 meters, a shallow trench goes to the house for the pipe work, and thats it. The whole process takes 2 days, and thats it. So, it can be done right on the front lawn, sow a few grass seeds, and nobody will know what you have done, only you will know that your energy bills have gone down by 80%
JFNANCE, Like I said before, my wind energy that I buy costs only 6 cents a Kwh plus taxes. SIX cents at source, and the wind farm owners are still making a profit.
Las Vegas will never become a ghost town, all they need is a long term energy plan, to get away from fossil fuels, because they will not last for ever.
I still do not believe your 6 cents story. Can you give me the name of your utility company?
First, there is no way you can get wind power 24/7. If the wind farms are at sea then when a powerful storm comes they have to shut it down.
I am OK with a very very long term plan to get away from fossil fuels. Nuclear seems the way to go. Wind and solar are too expensive and they do not offer 24/7 on demand energy. We should do it smart. Have some solar, some wind, a lot of coal, a lot of natural gas and a whole lot of nuclear.
The name of my energy company that sells wind power to me is called www.telgeenergi.se.
If I was to use what we call Nordisk Mix, the emissions would be 90 grams per Kwh, whereas with wind energy the emissions are only 5 grams per Kwh. Compare these figures with coal powered energy which are about 1200 grams per Kwh. These figures are grams CO2.
Do not believe what they tell you about not being able to get wind power 24/7. The wind is always blowing some where in this country.
As far as whether you believe that I only pay 6 cents per Kwh at source, thats up to you. Your idea of being smart, is not smart at all to have a lot of fossil fuel energy. For every Kwh of energy, the power station must buy fuel. With wind and solar, the "fuel" is free
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?con...
In the above link, it says that Nordic mix in 2010 is projected to only have 12.1% energy capacity that comes from renewable energy and they are predicting that wind component will stop increasing. Nearly 50% of Nordic power comes from Hydro. The rest comes from Nuclear and Thermal sources.
In the study listed below talking about Nordic wind power, it says: “The intermittency of wind may in some cases limit the applicability of wind power when integrated directly into the distribution network.”
http://users.tkk.fi/~patte/pub/conf_2006...
In this pro-wind study, it says, “Two of the strongest challenges to wind power’s future prospects are the problems of intermittency and grid reliability.”
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/37/34878...
When one looks at the figures, the question is why should Norway decide to invest in wind turbines, when almost 100% of their energy is from hydro schemes. Sweden have over 99% of its energy from hydro, nuclear and CHP, yet they still invest in wind power. CHP plays a very important role in the energy for Sweden. More than 50%of the Swedish homes get their energy in heat and power from CHP plants. There are well over 600000 private GSHP used in rural areas. Wind farms are sprouting up all over the country. Even Denmark gets more than 20% of its energy from wind turbines, and its always windy on their westcoast
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?con...
According to this article they are saying that wind power capacity is going to be flat in the Nordic mix.
They are expecting Hydro to grow even more.
Yes I did notice that when I finally opened the ppt file. Of course this is a very long term scenario 2071-2100, and since this report came out, Finland have decided to start building nuclear plants, and even Sweden is looking at the way to increase or upgrade their existing plants. Even hydro schemes are on the move again, which were stopped several decades ago in respect to nature lovers, but times change and so do peoples priorities. However like I said earlier, the CHP plants and GSHP are on the increase and could well supply a larger part of Swedens heating and cooling, as well as hot water and electricity.
jfnance32,
This may interest you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_therm...
"Molten salt storage
A variety of fluids have been tested to transport the sun's heat, including water, air, oil, and sodium, but molten salt was selected as best. Molten salt is used in solar power tower systems because it is liquid at atmosphere pressure, it provides an efficient, low-cost medium in which to store thermal energy, its operating temperatures are compatible with todays high-pressure and high-temperature steam turbines, and it is non-flammable and nontoxic. In addition, molten salt is used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with molten-salt systems exists for non-solar.
The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium-nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. The salt melts at 430 F and is kept liquid at 550 F in an insulated cold storage tank. The uniqueness of this solar system is in de-coupling the collection of solar energy from producing power, electricity can be generated in periods of inclement weather or even at night using the stored thermal energy in the hot salt tank. Normally tanks are well insulated and can store energy for up to a week. As an example of their size, tanks that provide enough thermal storage to power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours would be about 30 feet tall and 80 feet in diameter. Studies show that the two-tank storage system could have an annual efficiency of about 99 percent."