Posted on 04/10/2005 12:34:57 PM PDT by WayneLusvardi
Edited on 04/10/2005 1:01:34 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
"The L.A. Times is reporting an emerging political power struggle over Sempra's proposal to build a 1500 megawatt power coal-fired plant 100 miles north of Reno, Nevada which would use excess capacity in L.A. DWP's high voltage transmission line to bring power to California.
The controversy is whether to approve a polluting coal-fired plant now or wait until a nearby 1,200 megawatt wind energy farm proposal can start spinning. As usual the LA Times article omits the most important information.
First, since solar energy is dependent on the unpredictability of the weather a backup conventional power plant would be needed anyway for reliability.
Secondly, a 1,000 megawatt solar energy farm would encompass 127 square miles of mirrors while the footprint of a conventional coal or nuclear power plant is about a half square mile. So which form of energy is the most environmental friendly? According to the article, L.A., Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank and So Cal Edison will all have to agree to allow one of the projects to connect to the DWP transmission line which runs from Oregon to Sylmar."
**************
FR Poster WayneLusvardi's comments:
What the LA Times Omitted
The L.A. Times omitted two all-important facts in its article "Energy Quest Sets Up Power Struggle: Nevada showdown pits coal plant proponents against advocates of renewable resources; LA seen as playing a key role in outcome" (Sunday 4/10/05). First, solar power will require a backup conventional energy plant anyway because of the unpredictability of the availability of solar power. And secondly, the "enviro friendly" choice may not be between a "polluting" coal-fired plant and a green solar energy farm because an equivalent solar farm would encompass 127 square miles of ugly mirrors that interfere with the natural environment while the footprint of a coal fired plant is only about a half square mile. For the full article go to: http://www.pasadenapundit.com
Oh no. Imagine all those solar mirrors needing all the cleaning agents to keep the mirrors and glass free of dust and droppings toxifying virgin soil, imagine the mirrors killing migratory birds that thought them water or open sky, imagine creating unhealthy heat for the plant and animal beings, and the nasty environmental problem of leukemia caused by living near all the electric-magnetic energy, and the toxic chemicals that transfer energy to housing.
We're never going to be safe. Human life is so evil. We should not exist on this planet. I elect all environmentalist kill themselves for the sake of their goddess, mother earth. Call it appeasement. It sure appeases me.
This isn't far from their attitude already. But as usual, they choose that someone else should pay the penalty. Someone else should pay the taxes for their schemes, some innocent baby or some older person with poor "quality of life" should die to give the evironmentalists a little more room.
Please use the correct title. Thank you.
FMCDH(BITS)
If you would like to add a response to the published story, you may do so in the small box beneath the thread.
Thank you.
Bottom line: the cost of maintaining efficiency by regular cleaning was several times the cost of power "saved". So after a few years, it's just a symbolic "we meant well" white elephant, and no longer working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.