burt wrote on Jun 18, 2008 6:48 PM:We have all the sun we can use right here, combined with lots of open roof space. Fix the regulations that extend the payback period for local solar (ie, allow individual solar PV owners to get paid for excess power generated), let the demand go up for solar equipment and services so the costs will go down further. We have sun like other places have oil...let's use it right here. No on Sunrise!

Interesting wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:12 PM:We have seen this all before. When you have an indfensible position (Sempra etc.) you attack the opposition. I'd rather have a no percent chance of power lines starting a fire near my home. How about you? We live in one of the suniest and breeziest places on earth. What is wrong with the power companies? They can't make money on generation only transmission. Sick.

GO SOLAR NOW wrote on Jun 18, 2008 10:23 PM:Local solar, lets spend billions in this country to solve our problems instead of spending trillions in other countries destroying them. The corporations and Republicans have no vested interest in weaning off fossil fuels. CHANGE in 08

John wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:44 AM:You skeptics are missing an important point. People can put solar panels on a house but it's not economical, even with a subsidy. And you have no electricity for evening and nighttime. And it makes no electricity for shops and factories.
There is not enough battery power to store the quantity of electricity needed. Batteries cost a fortune and wear out. If they have to be produced in large quantity the raw material will cost a lot more than now. The solar panels wear out sooner than you are expecting. They can be used to supply some daytime electricity, but nowhere the amount needed by a community. One major advantage of the solar powered power plants rises from their use of solar energy to heat a fluid that then converts water to steam powerful enough to run a large steam turbine that runs a large generator. Now here is one of the big advantages. This plant can be made to provide reliable power 24/7. When the sun is not providing enough energy, maybe it's raining, but if it is desired for the plant to provide power 24/7 a natural gas burner can be added to the loop that heats the water into steam and keep running the steam turbine and generator and maintain the same or reduced power output while the plant makes use of the solar power during hours it is available. Get it? The same steam turbine, and the same generator. There is a big place for solar power plants in the plan to go green.

To Go Solar Now wrote on Jun 19, 2008 5:56 AM:I say Go Nuclear Now, what say you????

SEMPRAs other - So.Cal. Edison wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:22 AM:No matter what spin SEMPRA puts on it, the Sunrise Powerlink will bring an increase in fire danger, usurp the beauty of our Anza-Borrego National Park, and bring their power UP from down south to the power-hungry Riverside County as well through their use of the LNG "hot gas" that they are importing into Mexico, which will create more pollution and dire health effects. Too bad, but SEMPRA doesn't insist that SDG & E follow Southern California Edison's example with solar power on rooftops that they help pay for with rebates. SDG & E will not reach their requirement of 20 % of their energy from renewables, and the Sunrise Powerlink will not help in that goal at all, power goes in all directions, not just South. It is just not fair to the consumer at all, not to mention our environment !

harvey wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:39 AM:john should do his homework on solar panels. solar panels last 20 years plus.batteries are not required when using direct intertie inverters.peaple like mc cain say build more nuclear power plants they only last for about 20 years look at our coast they are already shuting that one down.
the power companys dont want solar because they can not make money on solar generation. if the state forces them to pay for over generation it will cost them profits.

Wade wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:05 AM:900 MW worth of solar panels on San Diego homes would require about 200,000 homes to install solar panels and cost $3.5+ Billion. But, these would only generate about half the energy of the 900 MW Stirling project because the panels on rooftops do not track the sun like the Stirling project will.

Solar vs Nuclear wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:09 AM:Hopefully people get more informed about this. I've read a couple articles stating it costs about $60k for one home to install solar panels and the rebate is $20k. A homeowner still has to come up with $40k. How many years does it take to recoup that investment? Now look at the eco side. I've read a couple articles that say it hurts our ecosystem more to manufacturer the solar cells that it does to use natural gas for the lifetime of the solar panel. For all the greenies, nomatter what we do, there will be an affect on the ecosystem. Nuclear makes more sense. It will be closer, have a smaller footprint, and keep San Diego independent. SDG&E will pass on the cost of the power lines to the consumer, then pass on the cost on buying the power. If I'm going to help pay for new equipment, I'd rather keep it in San Diego. Think it through guys!

John wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:15 AM:Power lines bringus wonderful powerful electricity to our homes, cities, factories, water pumping plants, schools an dchurches, shoppling centers,and big box stores are a wonder to behold. Therefore those wonderful power lines are beautiful. They even enhance the scenery. But that still leaves almost all the park remining to be viewed without seeing th epower lines.

Senior wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:59 AM:I am OK with solar panels to help but you we have to have real power plants and transmission lines. Do the math. Tomorrow the part of California served by the California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) forecasts peak demand at nearly 45,000,000,000 watts. Check their web site if you doubt me. You are not going to get that magnitude of power from solar panels alone. Besides we use lots of power in the evening and even late at night. There are many business and manufacturing that run 24/7. . You have to use power plants and transmission lines. Transmission lines are used with power from gas turbine plants, booster plants, oil plants, coal plants, solar plants, wind generators, hydroelectric generators, thermal power plants, bio-fuel power plants, and nuclear plants. If one generator shuts down CASIO throws a switch and another source keeps the electricity flowing. The personal at CASIO keep track of forecast need, and contact providers to see that the needs are met. In some cases they put out warnings when demand is so high there is a special need to conserve. This is a display on their public web site showing this. Some generators are standing by warmed up and rotating ready to be brought up to full power quickly and switched online if needed when some other one breaks down. CAISO personal just turn switches in their facility and you get power for your transmission lines wherever it is from where ever it is most available. With Solar panels on your houses you get some power during the day. In most cases not enough to run a full house air conditioner. Solar panels and a lot of batteries could do that but the installation would cost a lot more than most installations. A normal supplemental installation can light your house and run radios, TV’s and the refrigerator during strong daylight hours and that’s about it. Power lines are essential

Cmon guys wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:42 PM:The problem with the solar naysayers is that they are all about money and haven't a clue about sustaining our planet. Sometimes you have to sacrifice on cost to get the best, healthiest deal for the future.

Bambi and Smokey wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:31 PM:absolutely electrifying....

Floyd wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:48 PM:What solar naysayers? They're talking about how solar panels don't work at night, in the rain, under clouds and that they are inefficient when not aimed directly at the sun. As for the money, if you can't afford it then you can't install it. You can't pay the contractor with the promise of a government rebate -- they want money, and they want it now so they can pay their employees and suppliers. That's not naysaying, that's reality.

burt wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:11 PM:A number of the Sunrise power transport proponents advised the Local Solar proponents to “do the math”, implying that if they did some simple math it would be clear how untenable their position is to use local solar energy instead of piping it in from the desert. So here’s some back of the envelope numbers from my experience with my installation. My system cost about $15,000 for 12 BPSX170 PV panels, a MPPT charger/inverter, fixed roof mounts, batteries (since I’m off the grid), breaker panels and boxes, etc. The panels are fixed, except that I can adjust the tilt on the equinoxes to compensate for the seasonal sun altitude angle (I opted to install another panel or two rather than take on the additional expense and complexity to gain the 10-15% efficiency of solar azimuth tracking devices). I installed the system myself. Over the last two years of taking data, I average about 8-10KWHr per day. So that’s about $15000/10KWHr, or about $1500/KWHr. Sunrise is projected (think of Sprinter cost overruns) to cost $1.5B. So if I were spend that much to simply replicate my little system, I could produce in the ball park of $1,500,000,000/$1500/KWHr, or about 1000 MWHr per day. So even if I use the mid point of my average measurements, Local Solar could produce power within the same order of magnitude as the 900 MW plan for Sunrise! You could argue that my assumptions might be low on expense or high on power production, but remember, the $1.5B is not for the power, it’s just for the power transmission line! For Sunrise, there still has to be additional millions spent on the actual power plant, plus significant recurring operating expenses. Also remember some other basics about sustainable Solar power: 1. It’s not just PV; even simple collectors can produce significant amounts of hot water that can either be used directly or as preheat for standard water heaters; solar pool heaters are a proven technology (just put your garden hose out in the sun tomorrow for a few hours and feel (carefully!) what comes out when you turn it on). 2. It doesn’t just go on residential roofs, think of all the giant flat areas above office, manufacturing and parking structures. 3. The need for air conditioning is reduced because of the shade and reflection provided by the PV Panels. 4. Local Solar includes anything that generates power from Wind or Waves, both of which we have. 5. Yes, petroleum is used in the production of PV, but its return is spread over 20+ years, somewhat longer than gas lasts in my car. 6. Economy of scale would reduce the manufacturing expense of solar PV, provide competition to improve the efficiency and appearance, and generate significant contractor and service business opportunity. 7. We don’t have to shut off existing power generation stations. 8. Solar on my roof looks much nicer than a nuke plant down the street. 9. We don’t have to go to war to get Sun to shine here, and it isn’t due to run out for an acceptable few million years. 10. Sunrise proponents keep pointing to excessive homeowner initial investment and long rate of return for solar (SDG&E policy is not without blame in this department). Why assume home owners would have to pay for the solar panels directly? Why not fund sustainable Local Solar from the same place the Sunrise money is coming? The best news of all for a sustainable Local Solar approach is that it starts solving a problem now that the human race is going to have to solve sometime, and that is learning how to live when oil gets too expensive to burn.