backtop

Print 43 comment(s) - last by ekv.. on Jun 5 at 6:06 PM

Mayor Dave Bieter  (Source: examiner.com)
Mayor hopes it will bring more renewable energy projects to the region

Boise Mayor Dave Bieter announced Wednesday that Sunergy World -- a local company that specializes in biomass, wind and solar energy products -- is partnering with the city to build a $45 million solar power plant, and construction could start as soon as this fall.

This plant will be the first solar facility in Idaho, and will be located near the Boise Airport at a brownfield site. According to Robert Cavazos, Sunergy World director of project development, the plant is "expected to produce 10 megawatts of power, enough to power 1,200 homes annually."

Sunergy World has agreed to both lease the land from the city and oversee construction of the solar fields through all phases. Phase one consists of large solar panels being placed on top of "what are basically carports," while phase two consists of building a manufacturing facility to store them (this will be located on top of the old city landfill). A spokesperson for Sunergy World said, "the company is in the process of firming up any remaining details."

In addition, the solar panels will be provided by Transform Solar, a Micron-owned company.

In his State of the City address on Wednesday, Bieter talked about the importance of Boise becoming a greener, environmentally-aware city and how he hopes "the project will serve as a catalyst for the construction or relocation of more renewable energy projects and developers to the region."

"It's also about $45 million circulating in our economy, it's jobs for local workers, but maybe most importantly it's our first pretty substantial step forward towards that industry, and it's an industry that we really want to be a part of," said Bieter. 

The solar power plant is expected to bring in approximately 40 new jobs, 20 of which are in construction and the other 20 would be available when the plant is complete. It has been determined that private investors will fund the plant.

The construction of the solar power plant is expected to take one year. 

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
scam
By owyheewine on 6/3/2010 10:13:32 AM , Rating: 5
Well there goes the electric rate structure. Idaho has among the lowest electric rates in the country, but rates have been going up to subsidize windmills. Now if these guys can get financing, we'll be subsidizing another scam that produces electricity half the time at 4 or 5 times the cost of current electricity. When will the madness stop?




RE: scam
By Hiawa23 on 6/3/2010 10:24:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the madness, so called should stop, as we need to find alternatives to oil, period. Had we done what we have had decades to do, which is not depend so much on oil from countries who hate us, but gladly take our billion, maybe things wouldn't be as critical as they are.

I live in Florida & It pains me every month I open up my electric bill or go to the pump. Gas prices have come down, but we know that will not stay that way, & I have a feeling this mess BP has created, we all are going to pay for one way or the other.


RE: scam
By AEvangel on 6/3/2010 10:47:42 AM , Rating: 5
Your assumption is they are critical I would disagree. Also I would agree with the OP it is madness to subsidize something that is not economical feasible at this time. If you want to use it then you pay more, but don't force me too. That is called Theft.

A clear definition of an “environmentalist” would be: A communist hiding behind a green facade. A watermelon; green on the outside, red on the inside. He wants to destroy capitalism as much as possible and replace it with socialist central planning. The professed concern for Mother Earth is only a means to the real end.

"Thomas DiLorenzo"


RE: scam
By Jaazu on 6/3/2010 12:08:21 PM , Rating: 2
Do you honestly have no concern for future generations? I know it's easy to fall into the isolationist point of view and all, but do you really think that anything would work if not for community (call it communism if you must) support, whether it be funding or effort?

Is every person going to build the road out front of their house, or put up their own street light. The interstate system must be like the scourge of the red in your eyes. At some point there are tasks that are beyond the individual that require the efforts of the whole. I don't hear many people on here complaining about the gas / oil / bread / beef / corn / ..... subsidies that you are paying for. Why is subsidizing new energy technologies any different?

A clearer definition of selfish would be: A person who wants all the benefits of society, but is unwilling to contribute to that effort which is required to bring ahead the necessary constructions and mandates which allow for the progression of the whole.

I find this whole mindset troubling. It's that same attitude that would lead me to believe that at a family gathering where there is one pie (oil) for 12 people (a planetary population) the person would have no qualms taking half for themselves since they were there first. There are other options. Split the pie more evenly (conservation), find some other dessert to share (alternative energy). We just don't have the time to make another pie.


RE: scam
By ekv on 6/3/2010 1:32:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but do you really think that anything would work if not for community
huh? Don't know about you, but here we call it Capitalism. Works fairly well, so far.

I take it you haven't built a house lately. With the economic situation getting worse, cities have resorted to increasing taxes, but more to the point, developer fees are unreal. You pay a fee to connect to the sewer (and monthly fees thereafter). You pay a fee to connect to water, electricity, etc. Typically you don't see these fees since a general contractor is taking care of all the paperwork, but the fees are there driving up the cost. What makes you think these services couldn't be provided by a private enterprise?

I find the whole mindset of "progression of the whole" and "community" troubling. Further, your "one pie" analogy is jejune. There are many sources of oil that haven't been tapped yet. Proven oil reserves have actually increased the last couple years to something like 200 years -- even at current consumption rates. With that time frame in mind, we have time to transition to nuclear. Nuclear has some of the best energy densities, if not the best, available at a reasonable cost. Switching to nuclear would also cut out funding the Middle East insanity. No money, no war (well, fewer wars).

I am not opposed to alternate energy. I'm opposed to being forced to pay for it, especially when it is more expensive.


RE: scam
By AEvangel on 6/3/2010 3:44:17 PM , Rating: 4
Yes,I have plenty of concern for future generations. That is why I'm opposed to people robbing of their future before their even born. This is not an isolationist point of view quite the opposite it's a free market approach. I do believe that quite a few things would work with out subsidizing them. The earliest part of this country was founded on that basis. When something becomes economically feasible the market will provide it.

I would not complain about basic social services as long as my money was being used appropriately, the problem is today it's not their is tons of waste in the monopolistic control we have given to the Govt to provide these services.

That is not a definition of selfish, that is a definition of Communism or Slavery, if someone doesn't want to contribute they don't have to that is called freedom. You can't force someone to contribute with out being considered a robbery or a slave owner. The real problem here is assuming just because I don't like what you like I would not contribute to the betterment of society and that in it self is also selfish view.

Your problem with the pie scenario is that it is not as simple as pie. So by your analogy the one who picked the berries, created the fire, made the dough or baked the pie should also split it evenly with someone who just happened to be standing there watching?? The same goes for the Oil concept even though it is a scarce resource the one that invests their time and resources into getting the oil has a right to be compensated fairly. When their are few pieces of the pie left and it's too expensive to keeping the pie the free market will create new deserts for us too eat.

So no you don't split the pie evenly, that is a simpleton's mindset that I left behind in grade school and will not function in a modern society.

The only reason we are in the problem we are in now is that our Govt monopolies make it almost impossible for the free market to create new forms of energy resources with all their regulations that are in place simply to protect big business since they are the only ones that can afford to operate in this environment and therefore suppress design and innovation in the market place.


RE: scam
By JediJeb on 6/3/2010 5:55:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your problem with the pie scenario is that it is not as simple as pie. So by your analogy the one who picked the berries, created the fire, made the dough or baked the pie should also split it evenly with someone who just happened to be standing there watching?? The same goes for the Oil concept even though it is a scarce resource the one that invests their time and resources into getting the oil has a right to be compensated fairly. When their are few pieces of the pie left and it's too expensive to keeping the pie the free market will create new deserts for us too eat.


I agree with you completely. The problem is so many people today think that yes they are entitled to an equal share of the pie even if they just stood there watching it be made by others. Government today isn't helping any either because they put forward the same twisted ideals, but hey it gets them votes.

Things like highways and basic infrastructure are things that everyone should pitch in to pay for, because they will benefit everyone. But if the government wanted to build a six lane highway between two towns of 5000 people that would barely see any cars on it, that would be a gross waste of resources and could be considered theft of common funds. Solar right now would be similar. Using solar to power a community is wasteful in resources(time, money, expensive elements, energy to build, ect.)compared to using current technology for the same purpose. A private individual or company using solar to supplement their own usage is ok since they will be taking any possible losses of their own choosing, but to pass those losses on to the community without their consent would be wrong.

Honestly though after reading on to see that Idaho is getting most of their power from hydroelectric, I can't see this project as living up to its claims of providing a better source of energy in any form or fashion. If it were replacing a decrepit old coal plant with no filters then even at higher rates it would be making some form of positive impact, but to simply supplement hydro, what's the advantage?


RE: scam
By Donkeyshins on 6/3/2010 8:43:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly though after reading on to see that Idaho is getting most of their power from hydroelectric, I can't see this project as living up to its claims of providing a better source of energy in any form or fashion. If it were replacing a decrepit old coal plant with no filters then even at higher rates it would be making some form of positive impact, but to simply supplement hydro, what's the advantage?


If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that by reducing the load on the hydro system, they can get rid of some of the dams on the Snake River which would (it is hoped) improve the salmon stocks in the Snake and Columbia rivers and by extension the Pacific Ocean. If you aren't from the region, you wouldn't be aware of how badly the native salmon are hurting right now. The benefit to people (since that seems to be a focus) is that by allowing the salmon to recover, it will allow more fishing at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Of course, this is admittedly all conjecture, but based upon salient issues in the Pacific Northwest (and yes, I count Idaho as part of the PNW).


RE: scam
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 10:55:44 AM , Rating: 3
I had not thought of that and it is a good idea. But at 10MW for the installation it will take several of them to make up for the loss of just one dam. A nuclear plant could probably eliminate more than one hydro plant. The only advantage solar has over nuclear is it can be built where there is no water supply for cooling, and that is really the only advantage.


RE: scam
By sinful on 6/3/2010 11:58:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The earliest part of this country was founded on that basis. When something becomes economically feasible the market will provide it.


Thankfully the founding fathers didn't irrationally follow this blind idealogy you do and were much more practical -- picking the best solutions for the job, even if it was "SOCIALISM" according to your idealogy.

Ben Franklin & the second continental congress established the United States Postal Service because they didn't believe the free market could or would provide it, but the benefit to the country was so massive that they did it anyway.

Goodness, socialism right from the start, from the hands of the founding fathers. I'm sure that puts your idealogy in a tailspin.

Nowdays, leaders are going "Hey, let's jumpstart an industry, and concentrate know-how in our state, so when gas hits $6/gal we've got the infrastructure and expertise to PROFIT.

In 50 years that company could be the next Intel/Microsoft/etc of the solar industry, and Idaho could benefit from it TREMENDOUSLY.


RE: scam
By ekv on 6/5/2010 6:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In 50 years that company could be the next
USPS. Seen their budget lately? Rather red. Ever had the discussion about replacing USPS with a private enterprise? Think about it.


RE: scam
By integr8d on 6/4/2010 2:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
One could easily argue that this mad dash for energy alternatives is destined to lead us toward more isolation and not less.


RE: scam
By wiz220 on 6/3/2010 2:23:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A clear definition of an “environmentalist” would be


LOL, I don't think that's a "clear definition" of an "environmentalist at all. It's just a skewed caricature of one. In many cases in history, the government is the only way certain things that are necessary can get started BECAUSE they are not economically feasible at the time. This means industry won't invest, so you have the chicken and the egg, how's it going to get started. I for one would like to start on a solution now, before alternatives are "economically viable" (meaning that oil is running out and prices are skyrocketing).

I'm sure you're "forced" to pay for roads you don't use, but I don't hear you complaining about that. These arguments that tax dollars should be used only for what YOU deem necessary to YOUR life are ridiculous.


RE: scam
By AEvangel on 6/3/2010 4:07:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In many cases in history, the government is the only way certain things that are necessary can get started BECAUSE they are not economically feasible at the time. This means industry won't invest


If they aren't economically feasible then they aren't necessary, I have never heard of a single society or system that did not create something such as the case we have here with this scenario, that was necessary for their survival simply because it was too expensive. Your own idea that it was necessary invalidates the idea that it was not economically feasible.

quote:
I'm sure you're "forced" to pay for roads you don't use, but I don't hear you complaining about that. These arguments that tax dollars should be used only for what YOU deem necessary to YOUR life are ridiculous.


Yes, I do complain about roads I never use and being forced to pay for them. It's not ridiculous to want to control your own labor, with out others whom have no real vested interest in your well being then take your labor and do what they want with it?

What is ridiculous is subsidizing something like "Green Energy" ideas. If they are needed then the market will find a way. I could sit here and give you examples, but if you can't grasp the basic concept of supply and demand then they would be lost on you.


RE: scam
By Donkeyshins on 6/3/2010 8:45:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they aren't economically feasible then they aren't necessary, I have never heard of a single society or system that did not create something such as the case we have here with this scenario, that was necessary for their survival simply because it was too expensive. Your own idea that it was necessary invalidates the idea that it was not economically feasible.


Like a certain 'Bridge to Nowhere' in a certain northern state, perhaps?


RE: scam
By Steve1981 on 6/3/2010 4:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one would like to start on a solution now, before alternatives are "economically viable"


Have you done anything personally? Do you have solar panels on your house? Do you bike to work? Do you follow a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle? Or are you just a hypocrite who wants to buy solar panels with other people's money?

quote:
In many cases in history, the government is the only way certain things that are necessary


You might find that many would disagree with your implication that solar panels are necessary for the welfare of the country, especially when it means their power bills will shoot up drastically. There are other alternatives, ie nuclear.


RE: scam
By Donkeyshins on 6/3/2010 8:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Have you done anything personally? Do you have solar panels on your house? Do you bike to work? Do you follow a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle? Or are you just a hypocrite who wants to buy solar panels with other people's money?


I drive a very economical car and carpool to work some of the time. I grow a lot of my own food and raise chickens for eggs. We harvest rainwater. We've reduced our power consumption and are currently pricing solar water heaters and solar panels. So I guess that means I'm not a hypocrite.

I agree with you that nuclear is a feasible option, but that would require construction to start NOW if we want to have reactors online by 2020. I don't see that happening, especially with the current NIMBY-ism that is present in this country (across all regions and political leanings).


RE: scam
By Steve1981 on 6/3/2010 9:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I guess that means I'm not a hypocrite.


Presuming you're truthful, those are solid steps towards reducing your impact upon the planet.

However, since you aren't the original poster I responded to: do you feel government subsidized solar panels are a necessity? Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with research grants, but I'm opposed to propping up industries that simply aren't ready for prime time.

quote:
I agree with you that nuclear is a feasible option, but that would require construction to start NOW if we want to have reactors online by 2020. I don't see that happening, especially with the current NIMBY-ism that is present in this country (across all regions and political leanings).


Unfortunately, nuclear isn't the only power source suffering from such issues...

http://www.ktvu.com/news/23665394/detail.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2010/2010-05-02...

etc...


RE: scam
By Hiawa23 on 6/3/2010 3:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to use it then you pay more, but don't force me too. That is called Theft.

Come on, you can make that argument about anything we are forced to pay for like Wars in countries that are not winnable, or taxes for services we some of us don't need or want. You are going ot pay one way or the other, like the oil spill in the Gulf.


RE: scam
By AEvangel on 6/3/2010 3:54:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Come on, you can make that argument about anything we are forced to pay for like Wars in countries that are not winnable, or taxes for services we some of us don't need or want.


Yes, and you would be right it is Theft.

quote:
You are going ot pay one way or the other, like the oil spill in the Gulf.


Then let me pay then by choice, that is all I ask don't steal from me but let me choose to pay for it when I need it or want it.

Also the oil spill is a bad analogy for you to use since the one who caused the problem in the first place should pay to clean it up and then they can pass that cost on to the consumer through higher prices and then I CAN CHOOSE to buy gas from them or their competitor. But, the way the system works now if our Govt decides to help pay some of the clean up I will be forced to pay for it, whether I want to or not. As will the guy who doesn't own a car or consume the gas BP produces, that to me is theft.

It's not selfish to want to determine how your labor is consumed, it's called freedom.


RE: scam
By knutjb on 6/3/2010 4:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are making a moral relativism argument and that is very dangerous in a number of ways.

I think what he said is forcing all to pay for technology that is not financially sound on its own is theft. Solar panels have limited generation capacity because of the sun, weather, etc... It has more negative issues than does wind. The panels output degrades over time and that has not been significantly fixed in any panel. The cost is very high for the given kW. So forcing all to subsidize a financially dis-proven technology based on cost v. other sources can be considered morally wrong.

Not everyone agrees with war but it's not the same. BTW which war are you referring to as un-winnable? Please be specific. Failing in war has a dire outcome, failing in solar power just empties our wallets, hurts the economy and can be easily prevented in the first place by getting the government out of rational business decisions.

As to the Gulf, environmentalist are the ones pushing oil development out where it doesn't belong. If they operated in much shallower water where the equipment was designed to operate this wouldn't have been as serious if it happen at all. BTW there was a bigger spill in the Gulf 31 years ago, the ITOX at 1000 ft, with 140 million gallons over 10 months. http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-... Media sensationalism has the ability to override reality. The current jump to conclusions before enough data has come out to reasonably analyze it is irresponsible.

No I'm not condoning spills but oil has not been surpassed as the energy king by any technology. Deal with that reality head on without the government picking winners in business. The market is far more successful in picking winners. Government's record in that is abysmal at bests, any government for that matter.


RE: scam
By Paj on 6/4/2010 9:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
So you must have a big problem with the $20 billion annual subsidies that get paid to US farmers then?

Its great that you build your own roads, schools, ports, airports, power and communications infrastructure, recruit your own police, army and emergency services personnel too, instead of letting a nasty government take control of it.


RE: scam
By Steve1981 on 6/4/2010 9:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you must have a big problem with the $20 billion annual subsidies that get paid to US farmers then?


It isn't something I would defend to the death. The only real value of subsidizing the US farming industry is to ensure food production in this nation. However, there are definite downsides to this strategy as well, especially for less developed parts of the world.

quote:
Its great that you build your own roads, schools, ports, airports, power and communications infrastructure, recruit your own police, army and emergency services personnel too, instead of letting a nasty government take control of it.


Government is reasonably efficient or at least effective in handling certain jobs. It is expected to provide law and order, national defense, infrastructure, etc as part of its mandate as those are the things required for a civilized society to flourish. However, government isn't efficient at handling every job.

In any case, in my view it isn't a matter of communism or socialism, it is a case of common sense. Our government is deeply in debt with no way to pay it back. Subsidizing solar panel production does not help this as it is not a self liquidating investment. Further, at this juncture solar power is one of the most expensive (per unit of energy generated) and least capable forms of power generation. I have no opposition to research grants to further our knowledge in the field, but at this juncture giving a significant push to solar production seems asinine.


RE: scam
By MrPickins on 6/3/2010 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 3
You realize that only 1-2% of the electricity in the US is generated through petroleum, right?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table...

I know we use a bunch of coal, but the US also has the largest coal reserves of any nation.

Using wind/solar isn't reducing our dependence on foreign oil as much as you seem to think...


RE: scam
By Smilin on 6/3/2010 3:57:00 PM , Rating: 1
The idea is that electric and hybrids evolve and become commonplace at the same time as alternative electricity generation.


RE: scam
By knutjb on 6/3/2010 4:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
But the stated goal with EV & Hybrids is that they will end the pollution from oil based fuels when in reality it transfers similar pollutions from one source, oil, to others, coal and battery production, and conceivably could increase more serious pollutants like mercury.

Wind and solar don't have the capacity in even the best models to replace that many pollutant sources as our country grows. It's nothing more than a political power shell game.


RE: scam
By MrPickins on 6/4/2010 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

The idea is that electric and hybrids evolve and become commonplace at the same time as alternative electricity generation.


If you want to transition to electric vehicles, your only option is going to be nuclear.

Alternative energy sources will never meet the demand.


RE: scam
By nafhan on 6/4/2010 10:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
You're saying this as if solar power and windmills are our only option to get away from oil. There's lots of other options, ones that DO make economic sense.
1. Coal provides most of the power in the US - environmentalists hate it because old coal plants are somewhat dirty. At least with older plants they have a point. Still means no dependency on oil, though.
2. Nuclear - environmentalists hate it. I think mostly because they are misinformed.
3. Hydro - environmentalists hate it. The fishies need to swim!

It really seems like environmentalists mostly try to stop things without providing realistic alternatives. I think that they could accomplish a lot more if they went for intermediate solutions that were better, but not perfect.

Also, isn't Idaho kind of far north to be doing solar efficiently?


RE: scam
By Jeffk464 on 6/3/2010 10:33:51 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me the money spent on this solar plant would have been better suited for Arizona, Nevada, or New Mexico.


RE: scam
By ebaycj on 6/3/2010 10:46:33 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the City of Boise, who is one of the sponsors of the project, is in Idaho.


RE: scam
By Micronite on 6/3/2010 10:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is exactly what I was thinking.

I probably shouldn't complain since the company I work for is providing the solar cells.

Last I checked we (Idaho) had the lowest electricity rates thanks to a bunch of hydro-electric generation. We actually sell our electricity to other states.

My guess is that this is mostly a chance for Micron... er... Sunergy to have an installation for marketing purposes.


RE: scam
By knutjb on 6/3/2010 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
Idaho State has one of the top electrical power engineering programs in the country and Micron has a plant near Idaho State.

So maybe...


10 megawatts per year?
By ChrisHF on 6/3/2010 10:38:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
According to Robert Cavazos, Sunergy World director of project development, the plant is "expected to produce 10 megawatts of power, enough to power 1,200 homes annually."


The word "annually" is nonsensical in that context. This mistake constantly being made by the media and almost anyone talking to the media. I just don't get it.




RE: 10 megawatts per year?
By bhieb on 6/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: 10 megawatts per year?
By ChrisHF on 6/3/2010 11:41:26 AM , Rating: 3
I know about commas.

My point was that watts are an instantaneous measure of power. You can't count the number of watts a power plant produces in a year. You could count the number of watt hours per year or the number of watts (not per year, just watts). The 10 megawatts quoted could be an average output or a peak output. Either way, it is apparently enough to power 1200 homes. Period. Not 1200 per year.

The night/day issue can be solved by some kind of energy buffer or, more likely, selling excess power in the day and buying someone else's excess power at night.

They probably meant one of these two statements:

"It is expected to produce an average output of 10 megawatts, enough to power 1,200 homes"

or

"It is expected to produce 10 megawatt hours annually, enough to power 1,200 homes"


RE: 10 megawatts per year?
By mcnabney on 6/3/2010 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, this plant is horribly cost inefficient. The cost per 'customer' is going to be around $35k.

Would you pay $35k for free electricity?

Before you answer that remember that the interest alone for a $35k loan at 5% is almost $150. Wind is currently about 4-5x cheaper. It would take me 45 years to spend that much on electricity, that doesn't even factor in the 'opportunity cost' of spending all of the money upfront.


RE: 10 megawatts per year?
By ChrisHF on 6/3/2010 11:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
I was commenting on the abuse of units, not the cost of the project.


By robert5c on 6/3/2010 12:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
last time i checked, hydroelectric power was a renewable resource. and has a limited ecological effect except to a few fish, but even then if done right can have very little effect.

back in the 90's idaho had 100percent of its power from Hydroelectric...they were therefore the greenest power state in the nation...

but my main point is for example their Hells Canyon Dam, produces 450-megawatts, compared to 10? and 10 you only get on sunny days? quite a huge waste of money.

take into account the elements required for solar panels, and the large amount of space needed, and i don't see how solar is a better technology for the planet then hydroelectric.

this is just a PR ploy, solar and wind sound smart, but really are not. People need to wake up and realize that a lot of these green products they buy are really more damaging then using what we already have.




By Mint on 6/3/2010 2:46:55 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing was wrong. The resource is just very limited. Hydro has been mostly exhausted for decades.

I agree that solar and wind are bad investments on anything but a limited scale. Maybe someone will figure out a way to deploy thin film solar or high altitude wind very cheaply, but how knows.

The clear answer is nuclear. It has the lowest long term cost floor and most easily controlled environmental impact. A good 4 orders of magnitude less waste than the uncontainable pollution products of coal, and tiny land usage and material/energy cost compared to solar or wind.


wow
By Chiisuchianu on 6/3/2010 11:20:47 AM , Rating: 2
Cool waste of money, bro.




RE: wow
By HotFoot on 6/4/2010 11:03:34 AM , Rating: 2
The article reads this installation will power about 1200 homes. The cost comes out to nearly $40,000 per home! I must be missing something here - because that seems about double what a home owner ought to be able to pay to buy their own grid-independent energy solution - geothermal well, solar + batteries, whatever. IMO photovoltaics make some sense for distributed generation - put a panel on your roof or some otherwise underutilised space. But a concentration of them taking up land that could be put to some other use is an extra cost to an already over-expensive power generation method.

So yeah... waste of money left right and centre. Maybe this $45M should have just gone into further research into making solar power more affordable.


By corduroygt on 6/3/2010 11:08:57 AM , Rating: 2
As long as there are NO subsidies, like taxpayer money used for funding, which doesn't seem to be the case, or state guarantees to buy electricity for outrageous prices, I don't have a problem with this. Let private investors spend their money however they want, and when everyone refuses to buy their electricity for more than the existing going rate, I'm sure they'll be pleased on their ROI of more than 50 years.




Here we go again
By shin0bi272 on 6/3/2010 11:22:18 AM , Rating: 1
All of the solar and wind power in the country combined dont put out as much energy as a medium sized coal mine. When are the lefty lefts going to wake up and realize their "green energy" is the most expensive way and the most inefficient way, of making electricity? Can hippies not do a cost benefit analysis? Oh wait, no of course not cause to them its not about the cost its about mother earth man... And since when did we let the hippies determine the best way to get electricity to our homes? Whos running this show anyhow? Oh yeah the 60's radicals that were protesting the war and chanting "dont trust anyone over 30"... these are the people (who are now 60 btw) we've elected to run the country. And you wonder why the government just keeps getting bigger and needing more taxpayer dollars then they turn around and hand out money for people that obey their commands and buy a hybrid, or a solar panel, or a "more efficient" refrigerator... gimmie a break!




"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles










botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki