backtop


Print 90 comment(s) - last by TheSpaniard.. on Nov 24 at 8:05 AM


If the Judge's ruling blocking the construction of the Sunrise Powerlink through the Southern Californian desert, due to possible environmental damage, is upheld, it could doom the second phase of a massive 850 MW solar project. The project is among the first Stirling engine-driven solar farms, as pictured here.  (Source: Sterling Energy Systems)
The effort to tap solar energy in California's desert is grinding to a halt

California has long led the nation's solar efforts.  However, it is facing increasing legal pressure as the state's environmentalists clash over whether installing solar power is worth possible environmental damage.

The conflict was brought into sharp focus when activist judge Jean Vieth, an administrative law judge with the California Public Utilities Commission, struck down plans to build a high power transmission line from the remote Californian desert, effectively dooming the massive solar initiatives set to be built in the desert.

The desert project was a joint initiative by San Diego Gas & Electric and Phoenix-based Stirling Energy Systems signed in 2005.  It aimed to install 900 MW of Stirling solar power in uninhabited Southern Californian desert wasteland.  Stirling power is a method of concentrating sunlight with mirrors onto water fueling a Stirling engine, and is thought to possibly yield higher efficiencies than photovoltaic cells.  The plant would feature 34,000 dishes, each generating 25 kW.

Central to the plan was the construction of a suitable power transmission line.  SDG&E had partnered with Sterling Energy Systems to create the Sunrise Powerlink a $1.3B USD power line to bring the solar power to Californian cities.

The project was struck down by Judge Vieth, who argues that its 150-foot-high transmission towers, which would cut through Anza-Borrego State Park, could be environmentally damaging.  The park features many protective species and Judge Vieth calls the power lines impact "frightening".

The project has generated an 11,000-page environmental impact report, which is so long that few have taken the time to read it all.  Judge Vieth's decision alone was 265 pages.  In it she wrote, "The potentially high economic costs to ratepayers and the potential implications for our [greenhouse gas] policy objectives do not justify the severe environmental damage that any of the transmission proposals would cause."

The fight is far from over, though.  The public utilities commission meets in December to vote on whether to accept the Judge's ruling.  A commissioner assigned to review the case created an alternative, which they are also considering.  The alternative would be to move the route of the transmission line slightly, increasing costs, but potentially having less environmental impact.

Opponents of the project have argued that San Diego, the target for most of the generated power, already has enough rooftop space for urban installation of an equivalent solar installation.  The Judge has stated that she prefers this alternative.

COO Bruce Osborn previously stated to The Green Wombat, an online publication, that even if the Sunrise Powerlink was killed, there was still enough capacity to carry the 300 MW from the first phase of the project.  However, this will likely place more stress on California's already badly aging power grid.  Stirling still has its 20-year contract to supply up to 850 megawatts of electricity to utility Southern California Edison, a deal entirely unrelated, to fall back upon.

The case, while far from finished, illustrates an upcoming battle to be waged among once-allies.  As our nation embraces alternative energy, part of President-elect Barack Obama's ambitious national initiative, there will likely be increasing clashes between environmentalists supporting alternative energy installation, and those opposing it for possible environmental damage.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Two Palm Head Shake>>
By snownpaint on 11/6/2008 11:18:53 AM , Rating: 4
So let me get this right..

They don't want to expand solar energy, because they don't want to cause environmental impact with transmission lines.
(two hands to my head, while shaking)

If they built a nuclear reactor, would they stick it next to the city, so they didn't have to run powerlines.

If they built another coal/oil burning power plant, would they build it next to the city.

Any power plant being built would be put out in the no-mans-land of CA.. Nobody wants to live next to it, and nobody would want their property values down-graded by having one built next their house..

After doing a little look up on this state park, one of the largest desert parks in CA. It seems to have two large golf course right in the middle of it "Borrego Springs Resort" and "Rams Hill Country Club" that the boarders of the state park surround. My understanding golf courses are not very environmental. Using tons of water, fertilizer, and such..

As for roof top Solar, that is great, however, it comes down to a grid system, and all kinds of power management on the local level.. Then of course there is the liability (suing when a kid gets hurt messing with it on his house 25kw), insurance (when the thing damages your roof in a bad storm), the eye sore (did you see the size of that reflector/panel)and many other things.. maybe they might have better luck asking SanDiego'ins if they would like subsidies for purchasing one and putting one on their house. eliminating state risk.

Or maybe that judge would like it on her house..




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki