On Wednesday, Seattle P-I columnist Joel Connelly criticized the efforts of Republicans in Congress to turn Puget Sound into an oil super-port, by repealing the Magnuson Amendment’s 28-year ban on supertankers. The subterfuge came in the Orwellian named Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005, a cynical effort by the oil industry to exploit the post-Katrina surge in gas prices to shrug off decades of environmental regulations.
Today Connelly writes that the provision has been axed, after bipartisan pressure from WA state’s congressional delegation.
Before the provision’s eleventh hour deletion, Jimmy at the Tri-City based blog McCranium reminded us that Eastern Washington has a stake in protecting the environment too, suggesting that it was an opportunity for Rep. Doc Hastings, who sits on the House Rules Committee, to “show some real leadership.”
But alas, Hastings was silent as usual, leaving it to Western Washington’s lone Republican, freshman Rep. Dave Reichert, to join Reps. Jay Inslee and Norm Dicks in pressuring the Republican leadership. And no doubt House Speaker Dennis Hastert also found Sen. Maria Cantwell’s threat of a Senate filibuster quite persuasive.
Lifting the restrictions, Cantwell wrote, “would expose Puget Sound waters to an unacceptably increased risk of future oil spills.”
Cantwell reminded Hastert that federal law allows Washington to import only enough crude oil to serve state needs. In reality, the state refines slightly more than it needs and exports most of the surplus to Oregon and California.
“It would be a most outrageous result were the House to pass legislation that puts the Puget Sound at risk, for the benefit of oil companies who seek only to export the additional supply needed to lower domestic fuel costs,” Cantwell wrote “Such a result would take the notion of post-hurricane profiteering to a whole new level of shamefulness.”
And in case Hastert missed the point, she added: “I want to stress to you, Mr. Speaker, that because this issue is extremely important to me and to millions of constituents that live around the Puget Sound, I will use all tools in my power to stop this provision from becoming law.”
As Connelly writes, “it still pays to raise hell,” and fortunately, WA’s congressional delegation still has a few hell raisers.
I am proud of our delegation and the ‘balls’ it took to stand upagainst the ‘Chimp’ and his cronies. Go Maria Go!
Chimp Monkey: Who said it was The President? You lefties in your hatred just love to place anything you disagree with on the President.
Goldy, I hate your commentary as usual but for once I tend to agree with the concept only because the ineptitude of spill handling techniques here. The issue is not only do we need more refining capacity; just look at all the LEFTIST PINHEADS who are on the road in Western Washington, home of the majority of LEFTIST PINHEADS; it’s we need improved gasoline transportation infrastructure. Look at the recent tanker truck fire and death in NY State this week.
You’d be surprised what good materials I read! http://www.geotimes.org/jan05/geophen.html
“Still, the impact of the Dalco Passage spill was larger than it should have been, which highlights the need for a better and faster response to oil spills, says Kathy Fletcher, executive director of the People for Puget Sound. “Our response system was incapable of handling a tiny spill,” she says. “What does that say about our ability to handle something significant?” – Who controls the infrastructure and the machinations to handle a Puget Sound oil spill? LEFTIST PINHEADS.
Most spills in Puget Sound range in size from a few ounces to a few gallons. Some of the larger spills include:
Barge 101 in 1995, spilled 23,000 gals of diesel while in transit near Padillo Bay.
Barge MCN 5 in 1985, spilled 67,000 gals of heavy cycle gas oil when it sunk near Fidalgo Head
Fishing Vessel Tenyo Maru in 1991, spilled 100,000 gals of petroleum products 22 miles off Cape Flattery.
Barge Nestucca in 1988, spilled 227,000 gals of Bunker C off Grays Harbor.
Tank Ship Arco Anchorage in 1985, spilled 239,000 gals of crude oil while at anchor in Port Angeles.
From the Coast Guard: The following organizations are Coast Guard certified oil spill removal organizations that have equipment and people available to respond to Puget Sound spills. These companies have varying degrees of capability and response times. Some can respond immediately while others can bring in resources for larger, more prolonged spill situations. The majority of Puget Sound’s oil spill cleanup equipment and resources reside with these companies.
Advanced Cleanup Technologies, Inc. (Carson, CA)
Clean Pacific (Seattle, WA)
Clean Sound Cooperative Inc
Foss Environmental Services Company
Global Diving & Salvage
Marine Spill Response Corporation (MSRC)
Oil Mop, LLC (Belle Chasse, LA)
Why not empower these local companies with tax incentives to strengthen their capacity and allow double hulled ships to come in under careful watch?
That is really great news!
Ya’ll must have forgotten those hilarious Cantwell ads when she lost to Rick White….had oil derricks all around Elliot Bay….ah that was fun..
Puddybud,
Your comment was interesting, but difficult to get through because of all of the “LEFTY PINHEAD” bs. You obviously have something intelligent to say, so why undermine your points by taking silly cheap shots.
As for you comment about giving oil clean up companies tax incentives to improve their capacity, that sounds to me like trying to treat the symptom and not the underlying illness. Why not use those tax incentives to encourage companies working on the development of alternative forms of energy and transportation. That way we keep tanker traffic to a minimum, grow the economy and, as a bonus, keep the air clean.
Ray
Ray. Hows does government defined intervention into a free market economy grow the economy? You mean, we are taxed, or govt takes on extra debt, to say dole out $1 billion, and maybe only get $100 mm in return?
Maybe all the VC money pouring into Solar is a more effective way to get to the same end goal. Witness the enormous waste going into ethanol, etc.
Maria Cantwell seems to have a vendetta against oil companies. It must play well in her polls.
The Port of Seattle is a money loser. So do we do the logical thing and look for more business? Of course not. Instead we work to ban oil coming in. Let some other state deal with it! We are too pure to soil our dainty hands!
This was the baby of the late Sen. Warren Magnuson, a man who has done more for this state than any in history. He stopped super tankers in the 60s and 70s, which prevented the Puget Sound’s destruction by an Exxon-Valdez-type incident. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Economic growth should not come at such a high cost.
Righton @ 6:
The fossil fuel industry has been heavily subsized in so many ways for decades, and recent legislation only increases it. At the very least, it is only fair to equalize the playing field between fossil and non-fossil sources of energy. How could any good free market conservative be against that?
Green @ 9
Point to any significant research that shows solar or other alternative energy as being scalable and comparable cost-wise.
You could do wind farms, but even Teddy K hates that idea. Or is that only because the farm would impact HIS view.
How about supporting nuclear?
Green thumb; how are oil/gas/coal guys subsidized? More than average Amazon, P&G, Microsoft, GM, etc?
Nuclear energy should be the clear favorite for the alternative to coal, gas, water, whatever. But it won’t happen for the same reasons that oil tankers won’t be allowed into the Puget Sound. Environmentalists will block it with everything they have, most of which will be scare-mongering, not good science.
Funny that France supplies most of their energy with nuclear plants. One of the few things where they are ahead of us.
As for you comment about giving oil clean up companies tax incentives to improve their capacity, that sounds to me like trying to treat the symptom and not the underlying illness. Why not use those tax incentives to encourage companies working on the development of alternative forms of energy and transportation. That way we keep tanker traffic to a minimum, grow the economy and, as a bonus, keep the air clean.
Ray
Ray; the alternative forms of energy is already here, but your friends engerness to control everything prevents the ability to implement that new technology.
I am proud of our delegation and the ‘balls’ it took to stand upagainst the ‘Chimp’ and his cronies. Go Maria Go!
Comment by Chimp Patrol— 10/7/05 @ 3:33 am
Ray; Now you see what people have to deal with to get this technology on line. You enter politics(political affairs, methods, opinions, schemming, etc. [Wesbster’s Dictionary])you will never get any positive results, which means you get to live with present state of afairs.
You obviously have something intelligent to say, so why undermine your points by taking silly cheap shots.
Comment by Ray— 10/7/05 @ 7:28 am
Now Ray has a valided point in what he expressing here, lets get beyound this and remove politics and produce a solution.
Chimp Monkey: Who said it was The President? You lefties in your hatred just love to place anything you disagree with on the President.
Comment by Puddybud— 10/7/05 @ 4:41 am
Now Puddybud presents another example of why politics is not the right forum to solve this problem. He also gives a short term solution to the problem, but doesn’t give a long term vision to the problem.
NOW step out your boxs and leave your politics behind, the short and long term solutions could be produced in a short period of time.
Hey wabbit I see you got your tail in a bind when you crawed out your hole. You might hate us but we still love you just the way you are. That’s includeing my bad spelling.Please give Headless Lucy a hug for me, she is still working on her problems and needs a lot of support. God Bless, you to Headles Lucy
Reichert is smart to hedge his bets like this. Add this to his opposition to gutting the endangered species act. Next on the list is returning Tom Delay’s poison money.
He’s making it difficult for us D’s to mount a challenge. Mount one we will, but he’s doing some politically smart things. The writing is on the wall and is so bold even Reichert (R-Hairmasters) can read it.
Nuclear energy is highly dangerous but it isn’t going anywhere because it is highly uneconomic. Billions of dollars have to be put at risk before a single dollar of revenue can be generated by a nuke plant.
The last energy bill had all kinds of incentives and goodies for the nuclear industry and some in the industry were complaining that even that wasn’t enough.
Nuclear is supposed to be our saviour to exploit the tar sands and shale. The price tag for a facility to make a measly 200 thousand barrels of oil a day in Canada: Eight BILLION dollars. Not to mention the costs in environmental devastation.
That buys a lot of wind and solar farms.
re 2: AS usual, Puddwhack, you miss the whole point. These large oil spills are CAUSED by “PRIVATE” business entities, yet you have no problem with spending public money to clean it up. You are so thick-witted that that is your a priori starting point.
What is WRONG with you, you idiot?!?!
For the Clueless @ 15
‘Nuclear energy is highly dangerous but it isn’t going anywhere because it is highly uneconomic. Billions of dollars have to be put at risk before a single dollar of revenue can be generated by a nuke plant.’
Nuclear is “relatively” dangerous, yet that danger is mitigated by proper engineering. It does not, however, have to be “uneconomic”. The main risk at starting and financing a new plant today is the certain resistance by the greenies who want NO nuclear power regardless of risk. This is actually the case for oil drilling and refining facilities as well.
righton,
Government intervention shapes the free market in the U.S. in all sorts of ways and investment by the government can help grow the economy. As an example, who built the interstate highway system? Private money or the government? I don’t think you can argue that the interstate highway system has not help grow our economy. Other government funded transportation, infrastructure, and research projects grow the economy or provide a foundation upon which private money is invested for economic growth. There is no economy in the world where the government doesn’t intervene in some form or another. It’s all about choosing how to intervene and to what extent.
Clueless @ 15: “That buys a lot of wind and solar farms.”
Unless they’re in the backyard of a certain senior Democratic Senator…
Does your comment also mean that you Lefties have tired of the “wind farms kill birds” argument?
17
I wouldn’t see much opposition to nuke plants in Idaho, Utah, Kansas or Texas among other locales of “right-thinking” people.
So why hasn’t a facility been built in this country for over 20+ years?
China is going into nuclear big-time and France is cited as example of nuclear utopia as well. The common thread is massive government subsidy which won’t happen in the US because GWB has bankrupted this country with his foolish foreign adventures and his utter lack of attention and action on the economy short of the tax cut orthodoxy and caving to various Republican special interests.
Marky mark @ 19
Your remarks are puerile and juvenile. Nimbyism crosses party lines and species preservation is always a concern. Wind Farm successes like State Line testify to the potential and promise of environmentally-responsible renewable energy energy in this country.
For the Clueless @ 20
So why hasn’t a facility been built in this country for over 20+ years?
The opposition to US nuclear plants is not local. It is a massive propaganda and legal assault on any attempt to either build new plants or process waste. Check out the Sierra Club or similar organizations to see what their views are. They back their views with extensive legal teams and propaganda artists just waiting to strike.
With the long history of knowing there is a limited future for petroleum supplies, and the recent events that have driven oil prices higher, there are plenty of private companies that would step up to the plate. If, that is, the prospect could be that new plants would not be endlessly tied up in litigation and subject to the whims of voters and politicians in the democrat primaries.
This nasty piece of legislation demonstrates once again that the Republican leadership blindly equates the wish list of the oil and gas industry with the public interest. Whatever Big Oil might want, Big Oil shall have. So, Joe Barton proposes lifting pollution restrictions on power plants and refineries, limiting the rights of communities and citizen groups to sue over refinery expansion, derailing governmental objectives of developing cleaner energy sources, and the list goes on ad nauseum. This legislation would have no chance normally. The Republican leadership, however, cynically ties the legislation to Katrina and Rita. These fucks couldn’t be more active whores for the oil and gas industry if they were lined up to blow the industry’s CEOs. They are truly shameless.
Clueless @ 21
A bit defensive?? I note that you didn’t say that my comments were wrong.
My point re: Teddy K. wasn’t just NIMBYism, but HYPOCRITICAL NIMBYism. But that is just par for the course for the Left — let the OTHER guy pay.
And I have yet to see anyone post a link to significant research showing that any of these technologies are SCALABLE and COST-EFFECTIVE. If they’re there, great. Otherwise, if wishes were horses…
NoWonder @ 22
Your remarks about propaganda are in themselves full of right-wing propaganda. I would expect no less from you. You want to lay everything at the feet of your wingnut chimeras the environmentalists.
Nuclear plants for the last twenty plus years have had to compete against primarily natural gas and coal-fired plants. There was no competition. Nuclear was more expensive period.
Now natural-gas is falling away as supplies get tight. Nuclear is still uncompetitive with IGCC coal and even the most expensive renewables.
Many argue that nuclear still has a role to play in providing base load for the grid but not without government subsidy as demonstrated in the last energy bill and in China and in France. Advances in energy storage like flow batteries add to the promise of renewables and will continue to push expensive, uneconomic nuclear plants further out of the mix.
Marky Mark at 24
Not at all defensive. Ted Kennedy’s real or imagined objections (mostly by fevered right-wingers) to wind power are not germane to this discussion. You are just making noise and it’s apparent to anyone with a half a brain.
If solar is so bad then why did Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas and Electric sign power supply agreements with this outfit for installations with the potential of over a Gigawatt?
Why is wind the fastest growing energy producer in the world right now?
Solar is growing by leaps and bounds. There is a shortage right now of usable silicon for photovoltaics because of the demand.
The future is very bright for renewables especially as natural gas supplies on this continent get very tight. It’s expected that NG in Alberta which is needed to exploit the tar sands will be completely depleted by 2012.
Great comments and info on this thread. Crisp and fast moving. Thanks, Lefties!
Janet S. @ 12:
Did you know that all of France’s nuclear power plants are government-owned and -operated. Could that be why France’s nuclear engineering and safety record is so much better than that of the private nuclear industry in the U.S.?
Ray
a) Gov’t decisions the least efficient, but yes it happens. Key though is its the past of most waste, no hidden hand guiding things.
b) yes, feds do some, and i’m ok w/ canals, interestates, RRs, fed airports. But should Gov’t try to stimulate PC production? Should it favor Apple, Linux, Windows?
c) Yeah, all gov’ts do it. Japan hit near depression for a dozen years after years loving it.. not sure..
Ivan @ 28 – So were the russian plants. Remember Chernobyl?
Clueless @ 26
I never said that alternative energy sources were bad — just immature and not viable, large-scale oil-replacement options in the immediate future. I’ll ask a third time… Do you have any links to significant research showing alternative energy sources that are scalable and cost-comparable to oil?
Are you up for plowing more money into DARPA?
Man you lefties just miss the point. The problem is alleviated with duoble hulled tankers. My suggestion of assisted delivery is to guide the tankers into port to mitigate them running aground. I would pay a slight tax for having tugs handling the guidance duties. To me this is a solution worth paying for.
I am in Atlanta. I was here two weeks ago. Regular gas has risen ~50 cents in 2 weeks. Why? The refineries in the south took a hit and gas has risen that much. Some blends are not available yet. With local refining capacity, this region could take a hit and absorb it. THey don’t have it. If we have additional capacity, our region is somewhat insulated.
Everyone is so worried over the spill I said let’s have the cleanup companies strengthened and implement double hulled ships. The reason I suggested a “short term fix” is your side has stopped just about everything as alternative fuels for the long term fix. Why is that? You think the nuclear industry hasn’t progressed past 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl? Having an undergraduate engineering degree, I understand the technology. There are many types of nuclear plants we can build. For long term why not build a pileline like terminus for unloading the ships up the sound. But again you all would be against it. So you Seattleites, go on riding your bikes. I will be driving my SUV as needed. Understand this I fill my SUV up once a month.
Regarding wind power, ask the Kennedy family why they are against it.
And as usual, Lucite misses the big picture. Providing unrefined and refined capacity provides our region with the buffer to handle shortages in other areas. But again stuck on stupid dense as concrete Lucite types have no clue about business as you are corrupting school minds. You stay in academics, we’ll work on business.
hardover @ 27
I agree. This is one of the better threads I have seen. Thanks all for being so civil! And thanks to the the bi-partisan (except Doc) work to squash this thing. Maggie might have risen from the grave on this one… and I don’t think anyone want’s to see that sight.
31 – You didn’t say they were bad – you just made a lot of noise about Ted Kennedy and bird-kill. Very “adult” kind of talk.
NREL did a great deal of research into algae as a renewable substitute for petroleum. Google it. Here’s an indirect link to get you started.
The cheapest thing to do is usually efficiency. An 80 mpg car is a reasonable goal. Read about it here. We should be redesigning our communities to rely less on the car. We’d all be a lot less fat. We should transport more goods by rail which is 10 times more efficient than truck.
I see the hybrid vehicle as the most reasonable path to go to take this country off imported petroleum, that is, if anyone truly cares about the economic health of this country. Transporation should be fueled by a combination of renewably generated biodiesel and electricity.
Darpa is an example of an effective government agency that has thrown off many beneficial technological advances like the Internet. An example many right-wingers believe can’t possibly exist.
The office of technological assessment (OTA) was another. Of course it was killed by that shining example of moral character, Newt Gingrich.
Janet S @ 12, it is not the safety of atomic fission that bothers me, modern plants are safe; it is disposal of radioactive by-products, some of which reamin lethal for thousands of years. Where do we take out the trash?
Ogg @ 36
We could have had a decade of additional research into cutting-edge breeder reactors, but Clinton cut the project. The waste from IFR’s (Integral Fast Reactor) has a half-life comparable to the original source ore. Even if IFR’s aren’t the answer, it clearly shows that nuclear is an option that should be heavily researched.
Ogg and clueless, the reason nuclear plants are uneconomical is that environmenal laws prevent recycling of nuclear waste. If we, as the french do now, ever bothered to actually recover what is left in a fuel rod rather than try to throw it away, the industry becomes self sustaining.
Redneck, chernobyl was cause by insufficient shielding (a problem that russians have had since day one of their nuclear power industry). Mostly that was caused by the fact that their first plants were a copy of an american plant and they had no real clue what the shielding was for so they left it out. This has been corrected.
Mark, I would be happy to increase funding for darpa, you willing to close the loopholes in tax law that allows companies like Time Warner to pay no taxes to pay for that increase in funding or is this another republican ‘borrow and spend’ venture?
Clueless @ 35
Hear me now und beleeeve me late-ah… I do not agree with everything the GOP, its leaders or its members do. I also don’t think that all government is bad or that it should be strictly limited to roads and bombs. I’ll even call the fringes of my party everything from simply embarrasing to flat out wacko.
If you want to generalize, as you did above, all you Left-Wingers think your stuff doesn’t stink and that your leadership is without fault. What ever happend to “question authority?” Howard Dean could insult Mother Theresa and you’d find some reason to defend what he said. It was interesting to note that when I asked the Left to be critical of the Dem Party, essentially the only thing that came up was that they didn’t go after the Right enough. C’mon… admit you’ve got warts — and don’t just attack moderate Dems.
Bill @ 38
How about we wipe out ALL loopholes, put in a flat tax (with appropriate income allowance) and call it a day?
Without knowing exactly the tax break you’re talking about, I won’t make a firm comment, but if they are violating the spirit of the tax break (i.e. economic development, etc.) and just profit-taking, I’m all for cutting it out.
Mark – It’s hard to take you seriously sometimes. You yearn for “adult” talk here but then you respond to posters with glib garbage about “moron.org”, Ted Kennedy, etc.
Notice that I said in 35 “many” right-wingers.
However YOU said “all” left-wingers. Based on your recent comments about “moron.org”, etc. I think YOU are the one most guilty of generalizing.
Oh I am with you on closing loopholes. I am not convinced that a flat tax is the answer but loopholes are stupid.
For all the whining about double taxes on both coporate and shareholder income, the fact is most corporations pay less in total taxes than you or I do.
Clueless @ 41
The Ted Kennedy comment in this particular case was relevant because of the Democrats’ belief that they are the only ones on the side of alternative energy and Ted’s opposition to a wind farm near his home.
Do you really think my jab at Lefty Lemmings (DISCLAIMER: Not all Democrats are Lefty Lemmings) via “MorOn.org” sinks anywhere close to the level of comments many Dems here make about the President and/or other members of the GOP? If you are truly an open-minded Dem, you should throw MoveOn.org into the same trash bin as Rush Limbaugh.
As for the “all” vs. “many” difference… I’ll give you that one. CORRECTION: MANY Left-Wingers think their stuff doesn’t stink and that their leadership is without fault.
Bill @ 42
And owners (technically, “shareholders”) of smaller, closely-held corporations without top-notch tax attorneys end up being double-taxed.
All the fancy schemes I hear about updated nuclear plant designs, recycling nuclear waste, research on breeder reactors entail huge costs, government subsidies and risks like nuclear weapons proliferation.
France is again upheld as example but no-one is for the kind of taxes the French pay even considering they have no where near the defense burden we have.
All these schemes are uneconomic compared to the path of market -driven efficiency and renewables. I don’t doubt we’ll seem more nuclear plants built in this country but I really doubt it will be very many unless we really go nuts here.
If you are truly an open-minded Dem, you should throw MoveOn.org into the same trash bin as Rush Limbaugh.
I’m not willing to do that because I really don’t know anything about them. I visited their website once and all I saw were a bunch of TV ads and a place to contribute money. What kind of threat to democracy is that?
However it appears you have me and many others here pegged as being in total thrall to them.
Limbaugh on the other hand is on umpteen hundreds of radio stations and reaches an audience of millions.
Mark, that is no more double taxing than paying sales tax using money you paid income tax on is double taxed. If you have a corporation, you enjoy the priveledge of not having your income being the same as that corporation, your not banckrupt if your corp goes down (as you would in a single propriatar business). That is why a small corp gets taxed on income separately from the shareholders. You dont get priveledge without paying for it.
Let me say this a bit stronger, anyone who has a corporation with a single shareholder or with all shareholders in the same nuclear family are cheating and deserve whatever happens to them anyway. Those who avoid paying taxes are the scum causing half the problems in this country. Its sort of like businesses raising prices to cover shoplifters, taxes are as high as they are cause those with money can afford lawyers that reduce their taxes to nothing. The rest of us who do pull our share end up with a bigger tax bill because of it. You know, I suspect if everyone paid their share, then everyones taxes could go down by a lot.
Clueless, fancy schemes? bullshit. You sound like a republican changing the subject. I guess the dems are turning into their opposite. Recycling waste is neither a fantasy nor an increased cost. Fuel rods are ‘burnt out’ at about 90 something percent of their total capacity. The nuclear configuration of the materiel will no longer support critical mass beyond that.
Basicly we throw away more than 90 percent of a very expensive rod solely because it is currently illegal to melt it down and make another one. No, until we allow recovery, there will not be any more nuc plants, which is why those laws are there now.
bill @ 48
And you’re ignoring the costs of the complete nuclear cycle from digging up uranium, processing it into fuel rods, transporting it, fueling the plant, the downtime of the plant, the captital costs of the plant, the costs of recycling the fuel, the costs of decommissioning the plant all the whole time crossing your fingers that no gets hurt from any radiation releases from offgassing or anything else.
You put up a Stirling Dish from SES and it starts making electricity from day one using energy from the safest fusion reactor in the solar system (the sun) with none of the capital and environmental risks and it keeps on going practically forever. You put a wind turbine and it does the same thing and even provides an income for a landowner or a farmer and it runs at night as well.
Yes you get net energy from the nuclear cycle but the costs and risk IMO is too high.
I am not discounting or recommeding against solar or wind power. But how much solar power do you get exactly in Seattle, or worse in northern alaska? How much acreage do you need to divert to a wind farm right now given the average output of a wind turbine to power a small city? I think that there is an enormous, undeserved prejudice against nuclear power in this country, and oddly enough, coal plants do much more damage than nuclear plants could ever do. Those coal plants could be replaced by nuclear plants with half the operating expenses in just a few years if we actually did some recycling.
We don’t need solar as much in Seattle because we have so much hydro to draw upon but Stirling Solar dishes can work here as well especially in Eastern and Central Washington. They can probably provide a good portion of the peaking power needed by those areas in the summer freeing up hydro for more sun and wind challenged places in the Northwest.
Remember that around 100 square miles of these dishes in the most sun drenched places in the country would provide ALL the current electricity needs of this country. They would substitute for all the coal, all the NG and all the nuke. There are plants that are even more efficient like the Pyron solar plant which I’m sceptical of because it relies so much on water. Desert and water doesn’t mix very well.
Wind is highly ideal for the northern lattitudes and Canada and would be especially useful for home heating in the winter. The Dakotas and Wyoming are especially blessed with wind. Who needs coal bed methane?
In reality of course significant investments would need to be made in HVDC transmission grid buildout and ancillary services using technologies like flow batteries. I consider these more practical, safer and ultimately more productive investments than nuke or “clean” coal – investments which are truly deserving of government subsidy and will have huge payoffs.
Political realities of course will determine outcomes. Nuke is entrenched. Oil, Gas and Coal are entrenched. All will receive and continue to receive heavy government tax breaks if not all out subsidy. It’s seems really unfair to me but that’s reality so we’ll see some nuke, some IGCC coal and some more oil and gas drilling in places we haven’t allowed to date. I don’t expect a lot of it because the alternatives are too compelling and the capital risks of the entrenched technologies are too high even with the subsidies.
“Remember that around 100 square miles of these dishes in the most sun drenched places in the country would provide ALL the current electricity needs of this country. ”
Current is the operative term there. Remember the quote ‘640k is enough memory for anyone‘ Bill Gates (even though he denies saying it)
Bill, yes we will need more than our current needs especially if there’s to be a prayer of substituting battery power for a significant chunk of petroleum so I don’t completely discount a role for the entrenched providers in the future mix.
Clueless @ 51
Are you sure you don’t mean 100 x 100 miles — ten thousand square miles?
IIRC (and I’m totally working off the top of my head)… using present-day technology, it would take 300 x 300 miles to replace oil-based energy in the world. The US uses about 1/3 of that amount… That would still make it an area of 173 miles x 173 miles.
Me @ 54…
OK… for the SQRT part, I did use the PC calculator.
The other thing that gets forgotten in the equation… Infrastructure.
I guess you could have solar farms, but you’ll have a tough time getting average people to pony up for major solar panel systems and the related conversion hardware on a household level. Also, it isn’t always cost-effective. Take a look at hybrid cars. The ONLY reason to drive them is environmental. I’ve seen more than one MSM story showing that the increased cost of the car outweighs any fuel savings. Besides, I’ve also started reading hypotheticals about the computer systems needed to run hybrids. How’d you like to get a virus in your Prius at 60 mph?
Wind farms, nuclear, etc. are an easier sell because there is no need to change infrastructure at the household level.
I think this is great news.
First hammer the heck out of Microsoft and drive them out of the state.
Then block SWA.
Then block the refining industry from being able to bring in fuel, refine it so your state would be primed to bring down millioins and millions of dollars from a very gas thirsty California.
Now if you just find a way to start hating Boeing and kick them the hell out, you’ll have a complete coup de gras.
When you’re all done and all out of work and looking around trying to figure out where the jobs went…Come back and start whining about how crummy Social Security, welfare and unemployment wages are.
It’s a free country, and if you want to stick to the NIMBY mentality, you’re free to do so. Just don’t whine later because there’s PLENTY of other Back Yards out there.
We don’t need solar as much in Seattle because we have so much hydro to draw upon but Stirling Solar dishes can work here as well especially in Eastern and Central Washington. They can probably provide a good portion of the peaking power needed by those areas in the summer freeing up hydro for more sun and wind challenged places in the Northwest.
Comment by For the Clueless— 10/7/05 @ 4:11 pm
Clueless; Seattle don’t have the resourses for any power generating plants other than hot air or methane from King Country sewerage plants. The Hydro plants reside on the East side of the state except a few small dams on this side. The Grand Coulee Dam, located on the Columbia river in central Washington, is the largest concrete structure in the United States. It forms the centerpiece of the Columbia Basin Project, a multipurpose endeavor managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In addition to producing up to 6.5 million kilowatts of power, the dam irrigates over half a million acres of Columbia river basin farm land and provides abundant wildlife and recreation areas. Where in Seattle could you put a Dam of that size and whose back yard do you plan to irrigate. The transmission loss to send that power is almost as it receives. Now clueless come up with a better ideal other than wind,solar, tar coal, and we all can’t deal with the nuclear fear. The BEST soultion for Seattle is to cut the power off in Ten years from the east side, for that would get a reasonable time span to fix your problem. Sitting in the dark would help you to eat the crow you caught, and boast about how smart you. Maybe Green Pease will bring their Rainbow Warrior boat to dock and light up you city.
Mark @ 54
Oops! But then what’s a couple of orders of magnitude between friends? :)
Yes, that’s 100 x 100 miles. If it’s any consolation the Pyron Solar design which uses fresnel lenses and photovoltaics would be more efficient and only use something like 54 x 54 miles.
Conversions are not practical at the household level. It makes a little more sense if the technologies were built into the typical tract home but even then not much more sense. Again efficiency is the cheapest route for the household – insulation, efficient appliances, etc. I’ve seen some pretty killer houses with all the latest renewables built in but they are affordable only by the most well off.
The original impetus for the hybrid vehicle in Japan was emmissions. Similar sized compression ignition (diesel) vehicles are a better deal for the consumer but not as environmentally responsible. Don’t forget climate change. Read more about the gas-option hybrid electric vehicle here. Follow the links for more.
Another technology I’m interested is zinc metal-air batteries and the zinc cycle. The zinc-cycle is simple, renewable and liberates much more energy per unit of carbon compared to what we do now. You can distribute zinc facilities everywhere and they can produce metal-air battery components, electricity and even fertilizer. Zinc is a plentiful, common metal. Read about it here and here (nice picture).
klake @ 57
I’ve lived in Seattle for twelve years. I’m well aware of where it gets its electrical power. Eat your own crow as well as most of the rest of your ignorant remarks.
Nuclear doesn’t have much of a presence here because it’s uneconomic and generally not needed. The most economic choices will win and efficiency measures like co-generation and even the most expensive renewables like solar and wind are way cheaper than nuclear plants.
BPA sends lots of power to Southern California over the Pacific tie. Always has always will. Transmission losses are unfortunate but part of the mix.
You idiot fucking democrats amaze me. I don’t want to hear any of you bitch about how much it costs for gas or electricity. Every fucking time the adults try to do something to generate or deliver energy, you all have a fucking problem with it. So tell ya what. Stop driving. Get off the fucking grid. Turn everything off. Take public transit or walk or ride your fucking bikes like they do in china.
As usual, you have no answers. The party of no. No fucking ideas. Nothing positive. This is why you’re losing and will continue to lose.
Clueless @ 59: “Transmission losses are unfortunate but part of the mix.”
If you want to go after efficiency, THAT is a major area. IIRC, on the whole, only about 1/3 of the energy produced is ever utilized.
Here’s my suggestion for weaning ourselves from oil: Ground all airlines and put everyone in nuclear-powered Amtrak trains! ;)
I don’t know where you’re getting your figures, but just putting up a 100mx100m solar array panel will not possibly cover the energy needs of the US as we know it.
I’m an engineer and I’ve seen a couple projects that have tried becoming solar self-sufficient. One of which is a prison and they had to construct 400 acres of solar heat panels just to cover that one prison.
Your math says that the entire US can be covered by 100m x 100m? I think you need to check your calculators.
Even if all that math is true. Let’s just say it’s correct for a moment. Electricity alone still can’t come close to supplying all our energy needs. The huge onslaught of batteries needed to run heavy equipment, trucking, let alone automobiles would force you to srip mine the whole world to get enough Lead and raw materials.
I’ll grant you one point. I’m not running to the plate here and giving any good solution myself. I have no idea what we’re going to do, but whatever happens when we run out of oil, it’s going to be hugely dramatic and it certainly isn’t going to be a simple as allocatiing one county in our vast country to become the electricity county.
I will offer one small suggestion though. If you really feel so deeply about this topic then you should put your money where your mouth is and cover your own roof with solar panels at least it’s a start.
MTR – the “adults” have rejected nuclear power in this country for years – it hasn’t been competitive with natural gas or even coal. You’re not going to see any more ng plants being built – there’s no more gas for them. You’ll see coal and even nuke being built but only as a last resort – the capital risks are high and private capital so far has signalled that it needs all the help it can get from the government. That leaves renewables and efficiency and the market have signalling those as winners for a quite a while – they are the fastest growing in the world.
As for China – they’re going all out for nuclear – by government madate. That’s the government picking a winner – like they did in France. How do you feel about that?
As for cars I prefer plug-in diesel hybrids with all the energy being produced here in the USA. Not in Saudi Arabia and not in Venezuela.
Why do you hate America so much MTR?
Hey, hey, hey… MTR @ 60… take a breath.
Alternative energy is an issue that both sides can agree on — in general. We risk both economic and military security by being so reliant on oil. The giant chasm between the parties is how to arrive at a solution. I, too, am frustrated with SOME of the Left’s take on it (e.g. “Wind farms good! Oops! Dead birds! Wind farms bad!”). I also think we need to take human nature — specifically the nature of the average American citizen — into account. Solar energy companies wouldn’t be in trouble if everybody was all gung-ho about it.
So far, the discussion has stayed pretty much on track. And I’m sure everyone would like to hear your opinions on the matter. Do you really think we can continue to cruise on oil as-is?
Clueless @ 63
I don’t think the “adults” have rejected nuclear power as much as they have never really put a significant effort into it. Clinton put a stop to a major low-waste nuke initiative — Integral Fast Reactors — three years before the project was even done. IFR’s may not have been the ultimate solution, but they were a step in the right direction.
Also, you can’t ignore the fear-mongering about nuclear power. The American public is stupid — or, at the very least, intellectually lazy. All it takes is a well-organized campaign with selective data (or a single “incident”) and America’s “can do” attitude shrinks back to “stick with what you know.”
PAC – photovoltaics are expensive and not at all economic for the individual – however there is a market for larger customers. Federal Express covered their sorting facility in Oakland with them and the array delivers well over half the electrical power needs of that facility. Photovoltaics are doing booming business right now – so much so that there’s a silicon shortage right now.
The Stirling Dish is just a parabolic mirror concentrating solar heat on a stirling engine – 19th century technology. One dish can deliver the average power needed by 8 to 10 homes annually.
I’m putting my money into the most economic choices for me like insulation and energy efficient appliances like a front-loading washer and compact flourescent light bulbs. That’s what make the most sense for me and most households.
65 – I think of all the hassle and expense to keep people and the environment protected from a nuclear pile and I sure don’t want to go there. I don’t care how much heat those things produce.
I certainly see the seduction of the technology – all kinds of fancy designs and acronyms, IFR, PBNR, CANDU. It takes less land but it sure takes a lot more capital – and that’s the most insidious part. The damn things crowd out everything else.
clueless@68
Yeah but the realities are simple. The best efficiency solar panels (and you’re stirling engine) can achieve is in the neighborhood of 15% or so.
All the Solar advocates rave about how the earth receives 1000 times more energy in an hour than we use.
But they speak about the actual amount of solar available, not what we can practically use. They don’t subtract 2/3 of the earth for the oceans. Then there’s the half of the available land already developed. They also conveniently use the average world population use of energy of about 2KW instead of the US average of 13KW.
If you work the math out you need to convert 10% of the total earth’s surface with some kind of solar converter in order for everyone to use 13KW. Even if you didn’t mess with the rest of the world, we’d need to cover roughly 7% in the US, so where are you going to sacrifice that unused land? Shall we cover up the Grand Canyon? the Tetons? Rocky Mountains?
As far as I’m concerned, the only real viable solution as it stands today is Nuclear + Yucca mountain until we can find something else. But Yucca is also a NIMBY state so that’s out and the Nuclear Industry is so hamstrung they can’t do any legit research and development to figure out how to run more safely and efficiently. It’s partially their fault for poor operations at 3 Mile and such, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done safely.
The US Navy has quietly been operating hundreds of nuclear reactors under the harshest conditions imaginable since the late 50’s and have not had one single major nuclear accident. In other words, they have roughly 4000 reactor-years of experience that could be tapped into if we weren’t so politically ignorant and lazy scaredy cats.
PAC – half the people on this planet haven’t ever made a phone call. Not that they should never have the chance to use 13KW but let’s be real. I’m not just stuck on solar – I’m for wind and biomass as well. We have lots of land in America – let’s use it to produce safe renewable energy for America. Everything from solar to wind to algae for biodiesel.
The concentrating Solar Plant design from SES is twice as efficient as any other solar thermal approach being used right now and the concentrating solar photovoltaic panel is even more efficient.
It’s not that nuke doesn’t deliver the goods in many cases – it’s just too damn expensive. It’s one thing to build the plant. It’s another to fuel it, deal with the waste and decommission the plant when it’s worn out. That’s all part of the cost picture and it’s all very expensive. There’s only so much capital to lock up for years while the things are getting built before the switch is thrown and I’d rather see scarce capital being used for something that is safe, indefinitely sustainable and will deliver actionable energy in a shorter time frame.
Cost/benefit be damned. The reason we don’t want tankers coming itno the Puget Sound is because of the flow and currents in the Sound. look here. it’s the mopst apropos link I could find quickly.
Build refineries (but don’t foul the dirt around them or poison the people). Import oil if you want (but realize that the peak is either near or passed). Build nuclear plants (but have a superior plan on how to handle waste). But DON’T bring supoertakers into an inlet from which the oil will virtually NEVER leave.
That’s it. Don’t. And now we won’t. Thanks, Maria.
Clueless @ 71
And you do realize that solar cells also only have a limited lifespan (20 – 30 years), right? And, based on what I skimmed from BP Solar, if you concentrate rays onto the cell, the increased heat will wear them out more quickly.
As for nuclear power, we don’t really know what we’re capable of because there are KNOWN avenues of research that haven’t been done. Breeder reactors and their relatives don’t have the same waste, danger and weapons issues as older reactors.
Also, to go on a brief tangent, part of the problems we have with disposal are directly the result of short-sighted environmentalist actions. A guy I knew worked with the Navy on reactor disposal. Basically, they cut out that whole part of the sub and bury it. Because of enviro actions, they were forced to leave the reactor sections UNCOVERED, exposing them to the elements, rust-out and possible leakage.
Curtis @ 72
I get the impression that there are few people in this thread who want to see tankers — at least with current tech — in Puget Sound. That’s why the thread has moved on to alternative energy.
I can’t believe the shit that I’m reading from you proud clueless HAs.
Providing energy is a complex technical problem that should be managed solely by technical people. The reason things are so fucked up now is that we let stupid uninformed people (mostly do gooder liberals) get a vote on how things are done. The more you people stick your noses into things that you can’t possibly understand, the more fucked up things get.
Clueless@71
Sure, we have lots of land in America. So long as it’s not in your backyard. I’m in SoCal and we have a huge windmill farm just northeast of here (I suspect the worlds biggest). You should HEAR how the locals all go on about how ugly those huge wind monsters are. They cover many many square miles and every time I go by I count at least 2 in 10 of them not spinning for some reason (I’ve heard windpower has incredible overhead and downtime, it’s one thing to maintain 5 big generators, a totally other to maintain 2000 small ones).
As for SES, yeah, I checked out their site, and it looks interesting, but you are also seeing nothing but captial raising propoganda from a startup company. I notice you can’t go out and buy one because they are still in R&D. Also I’m a bit wary of their numbers. They aren’t very specific and it’s easy to claim twice as efficient, but they don’t say at what? Are they more efficient through the entire process, or just converting the solar power to another form? ie. do they count the loss in efficiency converting mechanical rotation to electrical?
It’s definitely worth developing and trying it out, don’t get me wrong, but I’ve seen enough things like that (remember the magic carbuerator that could get 100 miles/gallon?) to just buy ithook line and sinker. The proof will be when you can actually go buy one of these things and not until then. But even if it lives up to all the promises they claim and we do put them all over the place, solar can, at best, only provide peak power. Are we all suppose to turn the lights out at night? You still need SOME kind of plant to provide baseline power.
It’s one thing to point to costs. But rather than just burying your head in the sand hoping for a new technology to save the day you should at least spend some time expanding the technology you already have. The idea of not spending anything on nukes, as far as I’m concerned is just as shortsighted as a teenager spending his entire paycheck every week. Sure you can get away with it for a while, but eventually it’s going to bite you and unlike a teenager, we won’t be able to run to mommy and daddy and ask for money.
Take a good lesson from California. We’ve only built one power plant since the early 80’s because of all the environmental BS. Menawhile the population doubles/triples, we use more and more power and eventually we get one semi-warm summer and half our state suffers blackouts and BAM we’re suddenly wondering what went wrong. Same thing goes for refineries. I’ve not seen any stats on refineries, but I’d bet we haven’t built hardly any for a long long time and now we’re all like deer staring into headlights as gas prices double. All of the price hikes last year had nothing to do with Oil price, the refineries ran out of capacity. They are all maxed out. All we need is one good earthquake and the house of cards will tumble down.
Don’t underestimate the impact of high oil/gas prices on everything you buy. We haven’t felt anywhere near the impact yet, mark my words, the idea of 2-3x as much for electricity and everything else will come a lot more quickly than you think. The price of a nuclear plant may be high, but it can at least help keep pace with the explosive growth the US has been enjoying. But you can’t just flip the switch, whatever you build, you need to start now for something you’ll need 5 years from now.
But our sorry a$$ politicians (both sides) have been taking their cue from us. They hide from the topic the same way I think you are. Let’s just not do anything until that SES engine saves the day. Umm, yeah…good luck.
73 – Nuclear power is the most costly form of power taking into account the entire nuclear cycle, research and development costs and the environmental and national security risks. Radioactive materials are nasty stuff and while they all aren’t weapons grade material they all can be used to make dirty radiological bombs. The nuclear industry is one that has grown enough for my tastes and I’d rather a renewable energy industry grow and proliferate throughout the world as it is doing right now. I’d sleep easier for my kids and their kids.
Yes renewable energy components wear out and need replacing. At least they’re not radioactive and are made of simple common safe elements like silicon or zinc.
I’m an environmentalist and a renewable energy advocate because I love and care about my country. I love its heritage which includes its wildlife and their habitat. I want to see that preserved for future generations to appreciate, learn from and be inspired by. Nuclear energy and the indiscriminate exploitation of fossil fuels is a threat to that precious heritage. Renewable energy is a much more responsible path and IMO bears the least costs in terms of both financial and natural capital.
Geez, this bites…my post just got sucked into oblivion :-(
Well Mark, don’t fret the Navy nukes. They don’t use Plutonium (all Uranium), the plants are all austinitic stainless steel which does NOT become radioactive with exposure to radiation. Finally the only dangerous by products (beside the fuel rods themselves which are NOT buried)are cobalt 60 and a wee bits of cesium and strontium. The cobalt 60 is the only one in any quantity to do any harm and it’s pretty easy for them to clean it up and recover before they bury it.
I spent 6 years on subs and even at one point had to paint the reactor compartment on a silly whim by an unnamed officer. Even standing for two hours right next to the “dirtiest” part of the system (one of the check valves) I only got 5mRem of exposure. You get more than that on a day at the beach and 4 times that on a short airplane ride.
As for a superior plan to handle waste, the only legit answer is Yucca Mtn or an equivalent. At least for spent Plutonium, way way too many long half life by products that are all easily absorbed by organisms (unlike Uranium that you could eat and 12 hours later you’d find the whole intact chunk in the toilet bowl, plutonium can be absorbed through the skin ala Karen Silkwood fame). But we need to convince the silly Nevadans into just living with it.
Hey I don’t care if you guys have tanker in Puget. I just think you’re passing quite an opportunity. You’re in a cat bird seat with CA right underneath ya the largest oil consumer around. Why not look at alternatives like designating one sound a tanker area with ready to go Oil curtains. A short pipeline could get it up to be refined and sent back out again. Seems like all we do is say no no no instead of trying to figure out a creative way to be safe and efficient. The sounds are a huge asset because of their depth, the deep draft tankers have an impossible time going to many places.
But then again, hey, it’s you’re backyard. I’m just an amused observer from an equally screwed up state down south :-)
MTR – We still live in a democracy here at least ostensibly. You’d rather this country be run by a priesthood of sorts in which you’d be a prominent member. Horror of horrors! Fuck that and fuck you!
If you think energy policy is something only self-appointed big kahunas like yourself should be allowed to formulate then go ahead and enlighten us on how stupid we all are. Give us a big technical exposition that only you can understand and then take a few questions. However you won’t do that because you’ve already prejudged that we can’t handle it. That’s called elitism.
I and my children have to live in the world you self-appointed priests deign to make for us and I’ll be damned if I’m going to be silent about it.
Yes and renewable energy components are also made from Gallium, Arsenide and Lead (batteries).
Hey I love my enviroment too. I spend a lot of time enjoying the back country. But just saying I love “renewable energy” isn’t enough. I want to invest in it too, but I’m not kidding myself into thinking that it’s ready to step in and take the load either.
It’s not there yet and more and more we nee dot do something now.
Amazing how much environmentalists love hydro power, but somehow completely overlook the incredible impact it’s had on the envoronment. There’s not a chance in hades you could build one of the big dams nowadays with all the envoronmental impact stuff. Yet we can’t even allocate the inside of one mountain to get thousands and thousands of tons of spent fuel out of harms way. Instead we store it in hundreds of cities accross the country in big piles inside nuclear power plant back rooms and just pretend it can stay there forever.
I give you credit for at least thinking about the topic. But you really need to go further than just “I like renewable” and otherwise bury your head in the sand.
Mark @ 74 “..The reason things are so fucked up now is that we let stupid uninformed people (mostly do gooder liberals) get a vote on how things are done. ”
… didn’t Hitler say something like that once?…
Well, I don’t know about MTR, but I’ve given you some technical details and haven’t heard much in response.
You still haven’t explained what 7% of our country your going to designate as the solar area.
I’m still quite disturbed by the ludicrous illusion that one 100m x 100 m patch will do the job. The reality is it’s many many times more than that (assuming all the other efficiency numbers are perfect and you carve your 7% in high producing solar areas).
Are you going to convince Arizona for instance that half their state needs to be dedicated to solar panels? That’s about the correct proportion.
Ok, go with this magic stirling engine that doesn’t exist yet. 1/4 of Arizona.
Then when you’re all done, don’t forget to turn the lights off at night because then the lights go out. I guess we’ll all just burn renewable trees in the fireplace for light at nighttime, and go to wood fired steam engines for our cars.
Sheesh, this thing sucks up my post faster than I can type…Grrrr
Well, I don’t know about MTR, but I’ve given you some technical details and haven’t heard much in response.
You still haven’t explained what 7% of our country your going to designate as the solar area.
I’m still quite disturbed by the ludicrous illusion that one 100m x 100 m patch will do the job. The reality is it’s many many times more than that (assuming all the other efficiency numbers are perfect and you carve your 7% in high producing solar areas).
Are you going to convince Arizona for instance that half their state needs to be dedicated to solar panels? That’s about the correct proportion.
Ok, go with this magic stirling engine that doesn’t exist yet. 1/4 of Arizona.
Then when you’re all done, don’t forget to turn the lights off at night because then the lights go out. I guess we’ll all just burn renewable trees in the fireplace for light at nighttime, and go to wood fired steam engines for our cars.
clueless@78
this bites…I’m one of the few that doesn’t spew cuss words and my posts keep getting sucked into oblivion as soon as I hit “Say It”
Well houw about explaing where your going to allocate the 7% of the US land for your renewable sources? I’m still waiting for that rebut.
Also wondering what we’re suppose dto do when the sun goes down (still)
As for cars I prefer plug-in diesel hybrids with all the energy being produced here in the USA. Not in Saudi Arabia and not in Venezuela.
Why do you hate America so much MTR?
Comment by For the Clueless— 10/7/05 @ 6:27
Hey Clueless; you are slowly getting the hint, But stick that hybrids up your ass. Try to think out of the box some more. Your politics is limiting your view, let go of Ted Kennedy and the rest of his tree huggers. If I could turn the lights off in Seattle in TeN years you would have the solution for the problem and not eating Crow for dinner. Hey Wabbit were are you tonight, working on you wind mill. God Bless and you to Headless Lucy
and with the increased electricity demands al those hybrids are going to create. Where does the electricity come from?
Can you convince Arizona that half their state needs to be allocated to Solar Cells?
I don’t think you realize the scale at which we use energy and the hole we’re in.
Cost/benefit be damned. The reason we don’t want tankers coming itno the Puget Sound is because of the flow and currents in the Sound. look here. it’s the mopst apropos link I could find quickly.
That’s it. Don’t. And now we won’t. Thanks, Maria.
Comment by Curtis Love— 10/7/05 @ 8:37 pm
Why don’t you fools leave you back yard and find out how far off base you are compare to the rest of the World? I watch more oil transfer from an oil field and into super tankers without spilling one drop of oil. Now can you tell me where that port is and what three oil fields the oil came from?
PAC – how naive are you? The energy shortages in that early winter in California were engineered by Enron trader/thieves who took functioning plants offline! Or should I say traitorous thieves?
I believe California had some recent outages during the past summer and perhaps they were more legitimate. I don’t know. I didn’t follow them. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to.
The SES CSP concept has been in development since the mid-eighties. SES is the current owner of the intellectual property which was first developed by such “New Age” outfits like Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas. The CSP was tested by another “New Age” outfit called Sandia National Labs which has a little experience with “New Age” stuff like uranium, plutonium, thorium, strontium, cesium and every other hot isotope from up and down the periodic table.
IIRC, another hippie “New Age” outfit called Cummins Engineering also developed a similar CSP based on a parabolic mirror with a Stirling engine. I heard it was pretty good but natural-gas fired electricity was still affordable and when it comes to a commodity like energy timing is everything. The timing was wrong for Cummins and they couldn’t bring the CSP to market.
Here’s a picture of hippie “New Age” guy in front of one of those CSP’s . It should be a big hit with the wingnuts and place the “New Age” CSP more firmly in the “mainstream”.
SES has signed two power supply agreements with major utilities in Southern California. The pressure is on for them to deliver electricity at the agreed price. We’ll see what happens but I don’t think they’re in it to fail.
And yes the early wind-farms were pretty crappy and their sites were poorly studied leading to bird-kill. It sounds like you live in Hemet where my in-laws live. The current turbines are bigger, the blades move slower and are more efficient power makers. Most people think they look pretty slick. Economics being what they are, the crappy wind-farm operators can’t just swap out the old ugly turbines until their costs have been fully amortized or some such financial stuff.
California has installed over two gigawatts of wind power – more than any other state. (Texas strangely enough is in second place). That should continue. It’s good for California. It’s going to be even better when those SES CSP farms are fully on-line and producing 1.8GW of power in 2010.
Your point about base power is well-taken but I believe even renewables like wind/solar who have a reputation for intermittency coupled with energy storage advances like flow-batteries can solve the base power dilemma. There is a potential profitable market for ancillary services for renewables and all it will take is some additional hard-nosed engineering. Read about it here.
I don’t fully discount the need for more traditional base load in California or elsewhere.
fire @ 79
Careful… That was MTR @ 74, not Mark (me).
Then again, pondering the idea that we shouldn’t let stupid, uninformed people get a vote has a bit of a cathartic effect — even if it is a bit knee-jerk. Maybe we could just make up some “placebo ballots” for people that actually believe everything Air America and Limbaugh put out.
clueless@84
“PAC – how naive are you? The energy shortages in that early winter in California were engineered by Enron trader/thieves who took functioning plants offline! Or should I say traitorous thieves?
I believe California had some recent outages during the past summer and perhaps they were more legitimate. I don’t know. I didn’t follow them. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to.”
Yes, You do get my point. That first paragraph is exactly the kind of liberal crap that went flying around here. Finding some big company to blame when our politicians just don’t do their job. Sure Enron moved in and capitalized on CA stupidity. But they had nothing to do with the shortage itself.
Every paper around here railed on and on about how the simple fact that our grids were overloaded was somehow Enrons fault. Those dirty scum eating buggers.
Then lo and behold we have another warm summer this year and the EXACT same things happen. Now amazingly they don’t have Enron to blame.
Do they blame the idiots in Sacramento this time? Heck no. They just wait a while until things cool down, the brownouts go away and….forget.
That is, until next year when they happen again.
I’m sure that will give them enough time to finad another big bloated bastard company to blame.
The cold reality is though, that we just don’t have enough power plants to cover CA and it’s so impossible to go through the regulations we can’t even build new ones.
Just stupidity and chapter 2 from the democrats playbook. Meanwhile nothing gets done, no solutions are brought up and nothing happens but people getting blamed.
Wind and solar should definitely be developed. I never said they shouldn’t. But it’s still not there yet and we just refuse to form any interim plan and I feel it’s stupid and shortsighted.
Even with the claimed SES efficiency, you’ll still need huge tracts of land. 2 GW doesn’t go as far as it once did. LA with 3+ million ppl @ 13 KW ea = 5 TERRAWATTS. Those vast windfarms don’t even make a dent.
Ok…post getting sucked up again…breaking it into pieces…
clueless@84
“PAC – how naive are you? The energy shortages in that early winter in California were engineered by Enron trader/thieves who took functioning plants offline! Or should I say traitorous thieves?
I believe California had some recent outages during the past summer and perhaps they were more legitimate. I don’t know. I didn’t follow them. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to.”
Yes, You do get my point. That first paragraph is exactly the kind of liberal crap that went flying around here. Finding some big company to blame when our politicians just don’t do their job. Sure Enron moved in and capitalized on CA stupidity. But they had nothing to do with the shortage itself. I was here, I lived it and I actually pay attention unlike most ppl in this state.
Every paper around here railed on and on about how the simple fact that our grids were overloaded was somehow Enrons fault.
Then lo and behold we have another warm summer this year and the EXACT same things happen. Now amazingly they don’t have Enron to blame.
Do they blame the idiots in Sacramento this time? Heck no. They just wait a while until things cool down, the brownouts go away and….forget.
That is, until next year when they happen again.
I’m sure that will give them enough time to finad another big bloated bastard company to blame.
The cold reality is though, that we just don’t have enough power plants to cover CA and it’s so impossible to go through the regulations we can’t even build new ones.
Just stupidity and chapter 2 from the democrats playbook. Meanwhile nothing gets done, no solutions are brought up and nothing happens but people getting blamed.
Wind and solar should definitely be developed. I never said they shouldn’t. But it’s still not there yet and we just refuse to form any interim plan and I feel it’s stupid and shortsighted.
Even with the claimed SES efficiency, you’ll still need huge tracts of land. 2 GW doesn’t go as far as it once did. LA with 3+ million ppl @ 13 KW ea = 5 TERRAWATTS. Those vast windfarms don’t even make a dent.
Ok…post getting sucked up again…breaking it into pieces…
clueless@84
“PAC – how naive are you? The energy shortages in that early winter in California were engineered by Enron trader/thieves who took functioning plants offline! Or should I say traitorous thieves?
I believe California had some recent outages during the past summer and perhaps they were more legitimate. I don’t know. I didn’t follow them. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to.”
Yes, You do get my point. That first paragraph is exactly the kind of liberal crap that went flying around here. Finding some big company to blame when our politicians just don’t do their job. Sure Enron moved in and capitalized on CA stupidity. But they had nothing to do with the shortage itself. I was here, I lived it and I actually pay attention unlike most ppl in this state.
Every paper around here railed on and on about how the simple fact that our grids were overloaded was somehow Enrons fault.
Then lo and behold we have another warm summer this year and the EXACT same things happen. Now amazingly they don’t have Enron to blame.
Do they blame the idiots in Sacramento this time? Heck no. They just wait a while until things cool down, the brownouts go away and….forget.
That is, until next year when they happen again.
I’m sure that will give them enough time to find another big company to blame.
The cold reality is though, that we just don’t have enough power plants to cover CA and it’s so impossible to go through the regulations we can’t even build new ones.
Just stupidity and chapter 2 from the democrats playbook. Meanwhile nothing gets done, no solutions are brought up and nothing happens but people getting blamed.
Ok…post getting sucked up again…breaking it into pieces…
clueless@84
“PAC – how naive are you? The energy shortages in that early winter in California were engineered by Enron trader/thieves who took functioning plants offline! Or should I say traitorous thieves?
I believe California had some recent outages during the past summer and perhaps they were more legitimate. I don’t know. I didn’t follow them. Maybe that’s what you’re referring to.”
Yes, You do get my point. That first paragraph is exactly the kind of liberal crap that went flying around here. Finding some big company to blame when our politicians just don’t do their job. Sure Enron moved in and capitalized on CA stupidity. But they had nothing to do with the shortage itself. I was here, I lived it and I actually pay attention unlike most ppl in this state.
Every paper around here railed on and on about how the simple fact that our grids were overloaded was somehow Enrons fault.
Then lo and behold we have another warm summer this year and the EXACT same things happen. Now amazingly they don’t have Enron to blame.
Do they blame the idiots in Sacramento this time? Heck no. They just wait a while until things cool down, the brownouts go away and….forget.
That is, until next year when they happen again.
this really bites. I type out a post and it just goes away.
Argh
clueless@84
I would venture to say that I’m a lot less clueless than those people who blamed Enron for CA’s troubles three yrs ago.
Back then I warned friends and fellow political bickerers that Enron had nothing to do with the shortage, just the high prices. I also warned that it would happen again unless Sacramento got off it’s rear and started building power plants.
And then this year came and guess what? More brownouts. But this time no Enron.
Who’s the naive one I ask you?
clueless@84
part two…
2 GW is s drop in the bucket.
LA has over 3 million ppl. @ 13Kw ea that means they need more like 4 TeraWatts.
Even those vast farms we have. Many square miles don’t even make a dent.
Sure go ahead, devleop it. I agree….but meanwhile we need power that can come online now too. We can’t just halt all production for 30 years while the population doubles and expect SES to come save the day.
PAC – SES puts up a dish and that’s power for 8 to 10 homes per year. That’s a lot cheaper than tieing up billions of dollars in capital for a nuke plant for years before the first house can be served.
Efficiency is generally much cheaper than any power source no matter how good. Utilities are probably better off providing cheap financing for swapping out stuff like old washers and refrigerators and replacing them with much more efficient models.
Big companies have gotten the message. Fedex has installed photovoltaics and other companies are following suit helped by generous state incentives. Some large industrial users have invested in co-generation. It all helps.
Re: Wind. California has modest wind potential. Ranks just 17th in the nation. The estimated potential is 6770MW average power output. Current installed is at 2096MW and planned is at an additional 438.5MW. California’s electricity usage is quoted annually at 59 Billion kWh. So yes wind will always make a modest contribution to California’s mix.
I have no figures on solar potential but I think it’s a safe bet that it is a lot bigger than wind.
I don’t believe you’re correct on the 4TW figure for L.A. It’s 39 BW.
PAC – your posts came through.
Your wondering about half of Arizona. Don’t wonder. It’s really a much smaller portion of AZ together with a piece of NV and a piece of CA and a piece of NM and a piece of UT – add it all together and you get what you need. Throw in as much wind as you can and you need less. Throw in the zinc cycle and you need even less. Use a more efficient concentrating photovoltaic panel and you need even less again. Have some imagination. Think renewable. Think distributed. Think efficiency. Then you get what you need without all the destructive baggage of what we’ve done in the past.
And regarding Enron, read all about it.
This sneak-attack is more good evidence:
1) Repugs are completely thoughtless about the environment: not surprising, since many are evangelical fundamentalists and / or rapturites who don’t think man should steward the environment.
2) Repugs are lackeys of corporate interests who would sell anything including their mothers if there were a buyer for another % return on thier hoard.
3) Repugs will seize on any situation or use any lie to further their agenda.
We don’t need more oil coming into Washington. But we could sure stand to export some of these red-state refugee creeps.
I hear Utah has open space…
Sorry about the resulting double posts guys…I guess they all eventually came through and blasted the whole page. Wasn’t my intent, I assure you.
Clueless@97
Ok, well you can do what you want by gaining a few percentages by leaps of efficiency, but I dare you to take a look at some calculations I found http://www.aims.ac.za/~mackay/oomm.html
The guys is a very determined environmentalist, but I find it awfully hard to dispute his numbers. He quite simply starts with the total amount of theoretical solar based Kw/m2 available and works out how much we would need to allocate assuming we get some super efficient systems.
I’m quite surprised at how generous everyone here seems to be in allocating land in CA, AZ, NV and UT. This thread started with a big uproar about how horrible it would be for you all to give up a few square miles of your precious Puget Sound, yet you just want everyone else to pony up and give up land.
As for California, heck, I can’t even drive around on half the dirt roads around here because I might accidently run over a desert tortoise. The idea of completely covering big areas with whatever solar collector you want would be humorous exercise finding all the various species that would be impacted.
Good luck. Sounds like you have a great plan.
(I’ll give you one point for the Enron link, but the loss of one single power plant to take out half the state of california is still a criminal amount of planning by a state capital stuffed with hardcore liberals…and this year we didn’t need Enron to cause brownouts and no one seems the least bit worried)
PAC – I don’t expect 10,000 square miles of land in the U.S. to be covered with these kind of collectors. There will be resistance for sure mostly from entrenched producers running to Washington and other state capitols for cover. There will even be resistance from environmentalists. The nuke fans will love that.
I don’t pin all my hopes on large solar thermal plants. We’ll see a lot of people coming to their senses like Fedex did in Oakland and other large industrial operators using photovoltaics and co-generation. We’ll see more and more renewable energy generated closer and closer to the places it is needed.