Ask wrote on Jun 30, 2008 7:37 PM:NIMBY!!!!

Heavensent wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:50 PM:I'm all for this. So let it be written. So let it be done.

uranium wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:59 PM:I think Dave meant to say "4 miles east of Ocotillo" as Ocotillo Wells is on Highway 78.
Additionally I, for one, welcome our new solar overlords. If we can run our homes with solar power that will leave a lot of leftover power from coal and nuke plants to run our electric cars.
GM and Ford could have thrived if they hadn't cannibalized their electric cars. Lots of jobs could have been kept/created; maybe we won't screw it up again this time. We're all paying attention here in 2008 right?

DUDE wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:10 PM:Ummm lets see Global Warming, because of man or the earths natural episode. CLean electricity.....uhhhh NO BLACK OUTS.... and Less ELECTRICITY POWER LINES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE UNDER...

DO IT, DO IT, JUST DO IT...

What is wrong with people...SUSTAINABILITY!!!

Reardon wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:35 PM:Five years down the road? Why we can have oil from offshore in that time, perhaps less and the enviro-whackos oppose drilling as taking too long.

And the enviro-whackos oppose the Powerline. In truth they oppose EVERYTHING!

My carbon footprint is lower than Al Gore's -- and probably yours is also. Meanwhile the Gulfstream liberals want you to ride your bike so they can keep fuel in their Gulfstream IV!

It’s part of the Liberal War on the Poor.

Burt wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:59 PM:Local Solar is a viable alternative to the Powerlink proposal.

In a recent set of blog responses to the NCT article “Utility Lashes back at opponents”, a number of the Powerlink 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 ( I like they idea of testing new solar technologies, I just don’t want to see us pay for a extension cord from the desert to San Diego).

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 MX-60 MPPT charger/inverter, fixed roof mounts, batteries (since I’m off the grid), breaker panels and boxes, etc. The panels occupy about 18 feet by 12 feet (200 sqft) and are fixed mounts, except on the solar equinoxes I can adjust the tilt 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 get the 10-15% efficiency gain of solar azimuth tracking devices). I installed the system myself. Peak capacity for this system would be 12*170 Watts, or about 2KW (which never happens), but over the last two years of taking data, I actually averaged about 8-10KWHr per day. So that’s about $15000/10KWHr, or an installed cost of about $1500/KWHr.

Powerlink is projected (think of Sprinter cost overruns) to cost $1.5B. So if we were spend that much to simply replicate my little system using the existing power grid infrastructure, we 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 power production, Local Solar could produce power within the same order of magnitude (900MW) as the 1000 MW capacity planned for Powerlink!

You could argue that my assumptions might be low on expense (installed myself) or high on power production (more cloudy days), but remember, the $1.5B Powerlink doesn’t actually provide any power; it’s just for the power transmission line!

For Powerlink, there still has to be additional millions spent on the actual desert power plant, plus significant recurring operating expenses. Also remember some other basics about sustainable Local 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 a preheater 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 (where it reduces the power needed for air conditioning).

3. Local Solar includes anything that generates power from wind or waves, both of which we have as well as emerging technologies to harvest power from them.

4. 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.

5. 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 opportunities.

6. We don’t have to shut off existing power generation stations, and supply the entire State. We just use the existing infrastructure and start the process of harvesting Local Solar.

7. Solar on my roof looks much nicer and feels safer than a nuke plant down the street.

8. We don’t have to go to war to get the Sun to shine here, and the Sun isn’t due to run out for an acceptable few million years.

9. Powerlink proponents keep saying solar panels have an excessive homeowner initial investment and long rate of return (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 Powerlink 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.

Mr Smithers wrote on Jun 30, 2008 11:55 PM:Most excellent...now I can add solar to my nuke and control all of electron gluttons in San Diego!
Where's that man Homer I'll let him run the Anza project.

uranium wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:39 AM:I just read the SD Reader Article "Will these keep the lights on?" and now am not feeling so great about the Stirling solar farm and the Sunrise powerlink.

Carter wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:01 AM:Now you don't, now you do - now we can see that light at the end of the tunnel that seemed would never appear. But, here it is and this small light, that can now be seen, is powered by need and ingenuity. The ball is rolling and it will pick up speed and perhaps the need of the people will be met without to many people suffering. The future just started looking a lot better as far as I'm concerned.

SOLAR wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:41 AM:Eco-friendly power exactly what our country needs. Solar power is here to stay and we need to take advantage of the technology before it's too late. The country is in an oil crisis that will not get any better with time. Supporting this idea is a step in the right direction.

BOB wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:01 AM:The way to achieve self sufficient sustainability is on site solar generation and conservation.

San Diego County should not have to rely on Imperial County for energy

Paul wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:16 AM:I believe SCE has a evaluation system like this installed up near Barstow. Does anyone have any info as to how parallel a system this is to the proposed system? How successful was the SCE system? Problems, ongoing maintenance?

Walt wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:05 AM:Great timing! Just as the Congress wants to shut down new solar installations for 2 years for environmental review. Seems the same activists worrying about oil those pesky SOV's burn also worry about desturbing desert tortoises!

This is great wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:18 AM:For those folks against this take a drive and look where this is. You see in the desert the sun shines most of the time and where this is, there is currently nothing but brush. Exactly what the environuts want, solar energy. Unfortunately, they will find some fault with it and try to stop technology. They won't be happy until we live in grass huts and abandon cars etc. except for theirs.

Randy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:06 AM:Please ensure that the solar dishes are sandstorm-proof!

Arlan wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:53 AM:As was said earlier, "JUST DO IT." However, this, by itself, isn't the whole answer. We need solar, wind cole fired, oil...we need it all. Greenies ant it all but, NOT on any land currently occupied by a "red breasted anything." ANWAR adrilling is out because of the POTENTIAL of damage to the wilderness. A total of 2000 acres would be disturbed. That's 0.0002% of the total of ANWARS acerage. That's one-third of the acerage talked about for this solar project. I want thje Greenies out of my life. BUILD THE PROJECT.

prof wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:27 AM:Oil is used to make gasoline to run motor vehicles - not generate electricity! Natural gas and coal(which puts the mercury in your fish) are used to generate electricity.

The excellent analysis above about local based solar is too intelligent and rationale for our society. Moreover, no huge corporations can profit easily with that plan.

If this project is done Powerlink needs to be revised, perhaps using the southern route as recently mention by an advisory committee.

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:05 AM:Arian: It is all about the liberal War on the Poor. They want, have always wanted $5.00 gasoline to force the poor into mass transit – they hate the thought of individuals going where they want when they want. They hate the thought of people buying homes where they want, out in the suburbs – they want people to live collectively in urban high rises, collectively. They hate individuals making individual decisions – but they can’t herd the rich who can buy gas and live in the suburbs, anyway.

The Greenies, as you call them, can only impact the poor who must live closer to work and can be forced into mass transit. They hate choice, they want uniformity.

Just read Burt’s comments – he is an early adapter, and is Messianic in his prostilizing for local solar. I favor local solar also, but in addition to not in lieu of all other sources of energy. I believe we are fuelish if we do not utilize the sun, but I would not deny anyone else their source of energy.

It is ideology vs. practicality. We need all sources of power, and let the marketplace and the individuals decide.

bogie wrote on Jul 1, 2008 11:03 AM:uranium
[-] wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:39 AM:

Do you believe everything you read in the Reader?

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:06 PM:This unneecessary boondoggle is purely designed to keep SDG&E in control of centralized power, instead of investing in on-site generated power.
Please note that the costs are projected at $1.8 BILLION for just the first phase of 300 megawatts, but opponents point to existing similar plants and estimate the actual cost to be much higher. So we can see what SDG&E is planning to do: work out a sweetheart deal with a contractor for a lowball contract estimate and then stick ratepayers (at least the suckers who did not invest in their own on-site solar) with "cost overruns." And then everyone will be so, so surprised. Of course, no one could ever see that coming, riiiiiiiiight?
And the $1.8 BILLION is just to build the "solar farm." They still have to get the power to you, so to do that they need to spend another $1.5 BILLION to destroy 150 miles of sensitive environmental habitat, again taking advantage of sweetheart deals for use of our public lands that WE OWN, to feed their centralized power profiteering, and put us all at risk for wildfires caused when high winds decide to play tipover with these eyesores.
And again, when the cost overruns, wildfires and environmental devastation come, everyone is going to be ever so surprised.
Invest the money in massive incentives to encourage individual onsite-generation of solar photovoltaic.

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 12:38 PM:Arian: It is all about the liberal War on the Poor. They want, have always wanted $5.00 gasoline to force the poor into mass transit – they hate the thought of individuals going where they want when they want. They hate the thought of people buying homes where they want, out in the suburbs – they want people to live collectively in urban high rises, collectively. They hate individuals making individual decisions – but they can’t herd the rich who can buy gas and live in the suburbs, anyway.

The Greenies, as you call them, can only impact the poor who must live closer to work and can be forced into mass transit. They hate choice, they want uniformity.

Just read Burt’s comments – he is an early adapter, and is Messianic in his prostilizing for local solar. I favor local solar also, but in addition to not in lieu of all other sources of energy. I believe we are fuelish if we do not utilize the sun, but I would not deny anyone else their source of energy.

It is ideology vs. practicality. We need all sources of power, and let the marketplace and the individuals decide.

(Second submission)

MathTeacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:01 PM:This project illustrates the problem with large-scale solar power generation -- it takes up too much land area!

When fully built out, the proposed design would deliver 225 MW (24 hour average) using an area of 10 square miles (25.8E6 square meters). This corresponds to roughly 10 W per meter of land.

In contrast, the San Onofre nuclear power station running on only 2 of 4 proposed reactors produces 2.254 GW of power (day & night) on a 84 acre (340,000 square meter) site. This corresponds to more than 6,600 W per square meter of land.

The bottom line: in terms of land use, nuclear power is 660 time more efficient than solar power. In fact, to replace fossil fuel power plants with photovoltaics would require a land area nearly as large as the state of California!

Our schools need to do a better job at educating our masses.

Math Teacher

dave wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:34 PM:That pesky utility SDGE/sempra will do almost anything to build the Sunrise power link to transport the remaining 450 megawatts. Though local solar pannels are 8% efficient (50 square miles) and the steam sterling system 50% efficient (10 square miles). We can do thison the coast!!
Is there somone or City who has 10 to 50 square miles so we can create electricity?

To Math Teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:55 PM:Right on! The problem is even though you are correct the environuts think they know more. They do not let facts cloud their thinking or increase their knowledge.

janet wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:07 PM:Dave said: "Is there somone or City who has 10 to 50 square miles so we can create electricity?"

Yes, all the rooftops all over the county.

Transmission is inefficient and it leaves us dependent on one or two links that could be taken out by terrorism or fire.

BOB wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:09 PM:On site generation and conservation is the answer. Sustainable self suffiecincy should be the goal of every communitiy.

Janet wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:38 PM:About the NIMBY comment, it's the exact opposite. We are saying that research should focus on putting energy transmission on one's own property as much as possible. We want solar and wind generated energy in our backyards where we control it, not Sempra. The only reason this isn't happening is because huge corporations can't profit from it. As a result, politicians aren't being paid off so they will approve something that would benefit those corporation (such as Sempra).

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:51 PM:The post from "Reardon" (12:38pm) shows the same "CAN'T DO" anti-environmental hostility he has shown in many posts on other web comments pages.
He misrepresents the position of environmentalists because he either doesn't understand it or just needs an overly simplistic point.
The fact is that there is no reason to choose filthy, dangerous boondoggles like PowerStink that centralize energy in the hands of corporate providers, when there are much better alternatives.
My house is powered by sunshine and I've put down my deposit for an electric car (the locally-roduced Aptera, being manufactured in Carlsbad to create North County jobs).
In the meantime, people like "Reardon" who hate the poor have put up all kinds of obstructions to prevent the kinds of incentives and rebates that would make such options available for everyone. In the meantime, I will not be held hostage by corporations or buying energy from foreign terrorists, and will try to make such options available to others, despite the obstacles of obtructionists like "Reardon."

Stephan wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:59 PM:I am glad this is an election year and I hope people are paying attention. Our wonderful congress just went home for the next several weeks while they were right in the middle of working on the Tax Credit system for alternative energies such as solar, wind, etc.

This is shameful. This should be priority number one with the current situation, instead they adjourn and go home without settling anything. How typical of our "fat cats" who have no problems filling up their limos and getting a free ride home.

I think that renewable self sufficient energy plans should be something that is highly encouraged. Instead with the tax credits in limbo for this year and only five weeks of congressional sessions left before all the representatives go home for the elections, many big corporations are putting off big spending on "good" energy projects until the congress decides what it is going to do. I wish we had a performance rating for these bums we call representatives so that if they fail to "do their job" they could be fired.

Oh wait, we do have that already.... it is called an election. LOL

blm to Math Teacher wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:12 PM:This kind of arithmetic is misleading...along these lines of thought, a 16" hole in the ground that leads to a big enough oil reservoir could be shown to generate more power per square inch of land than the nuclear plant, but we're missing the concepts of sustainability, safety and undesirable side effects. The sun will keep providing power for even longer than nuclear waste will be emitting dangerous radiation, and solar panels can't be hijacked to make a dirty bomb. Surface area we have locally; it doesn't have to be bare sand. Calculations based on current PV efficiency would show that existing solar technology can not immediately replace all fossil fuels, but once we put our minds to it, maybe by breathing some air that isn't brownish yellow, we'll find ways to improve conversion efficiency of solar through many means that very likely would in the long run replace fossil fuels.

By the way, I'm in favor of appropriate technology, where the benefits and the risks are considered in addition to the economics when making the decision to use it. I don't live in a grass hut or really want to for that matter. I'm not a "greenie" who is mindlessly against all technology, I don't want to stick my feet through the floor of my car, and I'm not an environut just because I'm interested in living longer in a more healthy environment, and in answering the question "What kind of world are we leaving our great grandkids?"

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 3:15 PM:DD calling me an obstructionist is a hoot! I favor his solution -- he opposes mine. I favor nuclear, solar (rooftop and farm), geothermal, oil, hydroelectric, coal, coal gassification, (fill in the blank)...

And DD calls me the "obstructionist?"

Yhe mind boggles! Truly Orwellian!

MathTeacher to blm wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:03 PM:What is misleading is dismissing sound science and common sense in favor of a political adgenda.

The fear of nuclear energy is not at all justified by the facts -- 2 incidents in 50 years. The French are getting 80% of their energy from nuclear power, as is the US Navy.

Solar power has not had the sightest bit of scrutinity, so here are a few things to consider:

1) environmental impact: to implemnent solar power on a scale large enough to have an impact on our energy demands will require scaling up the semiconductor industry by several orders of magnitude; e.g., microchips are small and solar panels are large. Have we at all considered the environmental impact of generating huge quantities of highly toxic waste from large-scale silicon processing? Worse yet would be the manufacture of plastic photovoltaics which would require millions and millions of gallons of nasty solvents.

2) efficiency: the best conversion efficiency to date is about 20% for crystalline silicon. Most panels exhibit 10-15% efficiency because they are made from far cheaper polycrystalline silicon. Scientists have been working on this for half a century, so don't hold your breath for 50% efficiency.

3) waste heat: a never mentioned downside to low efficiency is that the majority of the solar radiation goes into heating the panels and the surrounding area -- try putting a thermometer on your solar panel in the middle of the day -- I'll bet is 30-50C hotter than the air temperature away from the panel. Since the area-efficiency of photovoltaics is 10 only W/m^2 solar power plants will dramatically heat their surrounding environment -- much like the road asphalt has heated Pheonix.

If our goal is to aleviate global warming, we would very likely be better off by forgetting about photovoltaics and replacing our roofs with high-albedo reflectors to reflect as much solar radiation back out into space as possible -- this is how the earth's poles stay cold.

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:26 PM:blm: Whule I do not question BLM’s personal sincerity in his statement, “By the way, I'm in favor of appropriate technology, where the benefits and the risks are considered in addition to the economics when making the decision to use it,” I would just note that is the second level of obstruction used by environuts.

Their first level is to sue everyone in sight. (i.e. The Surfrider Foundation’s continued lawsuits against the desalinization plant; the Sierra Club suit against the Border Fence – there are scores of examples of lawsuit obstructionism.)

The second, and often simultaneous level is pure public relations, and it is “I favor (nuclear)(drilling)Coal gasification)(fill in the blank), BUT ONLY WITH SUFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL RULES. The sub-text of that statement is, in soto voce, “You will NEVER get sufficient environmental control to satisfy ME!”

I believe blm, but his friends who use exactly the same words, are frauds. They are Luddites who DO want everyone (actually a lot fewer "everyones") to live in grass shacks to more closely commune with nature.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 4:40 PM:The post from "Reardon" (3:15pm) complains because I oppose energy methods that cause harm to the environment such as oil and coal (with oil's dependence on foreign terrorists) or bring exhorbitant costs for construction and waste disposal such as nuclear or require unnecessary central control of energy and long-distance transmission through expensive power lines causing fire hazard to sensitive environmental areas.
Darn right I oppose expensive, risky fire hazards that cause massive environmental devastation, especially since we have cheaper, better alternatives (except that the power companies are terrified of us becoming energy independent -- from them).
I don't call that obstruction, I call that common sense.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:50 PM:The post from "MathTeacher to blm" (4:03pm) notes that, "The fear of nuclear energy is not at all justified by the facts -- 2 incidents in 50 years."
The primary objection to nuclear is not safety, but the enormous costs of initial construction, as well as the ongoing problem of nuclear waste disposal.
However, since you bring it up, the issue is not just 2 incidents in 50 years, but the fact that if something goes wrong, the consequences can be catastrophic.
If it were as absolute in its safety as you would like us to believe, then why is it that no private insurance carrier will provide liability coverage, which is only available through government subsidies?
Other forms of alternative energy have no problem buying liability insurance.

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:56 PM:Read DD's posts! He is a member of two informal groups -- CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) and BANNA (Build Almost Nothing Near Anything).

He is a great example of the Liberal War on the Poor. Because he can afford to solar his home, and eventually buy an electric car he believes everyone should be forced to follow his example.

Obviously the poor do not have his choices, so "let them eat cake." of course, DD will reply that the government should subsidize the poor as they go all solar -- forgetting that California has a $17 BILLION deficit!

As a libertarian I am willing to let DD live his life as he pleases. As a member of the Democratic Party (read "Compulsory Utopian") local hierarchy, he wants to force everyone to follow him.

I choose to not do so, even though I can afford to. I figure that so long as I am "Greener" than Al Gore (and Arnold Schwarzenegger), then I am just fine.

MathTeacher to DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:24 PM:The hysteria lawsuits against nuclear power projects begin BEFORE ground is even broken -- this is why private insurance has vanished.

Wis cites the "enormous costs of initial construction" as an argument against nuclear energy without any comparison to an equivalent solar power plant. Let's see the 2008 numbers for both and then make an informed argument on the merits.

I encourage Wis to drop his tired, worn-out talking points and address the concerns I have raised about solar energy. This path needs much more scrutinity before we make a decision that we may later regret.

Nuclear energy is hard to beat from both environmental and economical perspectives. On this (& only this), I agree with the French. Viva La France!

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 6:40 PM:The post from "Reardon" (5:56pm) deteriorates into pure, 100% name-calling.
Sorry, "Reardon," but if all you can do is offer middle-school insults instead of trying to maintain a serious dialogue, please don't expect me to stoop to your level.
As you well know, I have repeatedly stated, and believe my lifestyle reflects, that it is amply possible to live a life that enjoys the finer things in life without destruction to the environment.
If you have to make up positions and fantasy "organizations" of your own invention instead of addressing actual issues, you are more desperate than I realized.

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:06 PM:Since I am greener than others, pun intended, then I am better. Don't tell me what is best I will push for oil, nuclear and coal. It was best during my life so it should be best now.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:34 PM:I'm puzzled how Reardon at 5:56 p.m. "figures" he is "greener" than Al Gore.
Al Gore redid his house and estate to become a model example of green living, with solar electric and heating and all kinds of other environmental enhancements.
Oh, is it the travel thing?
Sorry, Reardon, but that is comparing apples and fruitcakes, like criticizing a solar installation company because they deliver panels on trucks.
When Gore travels around the world, it is for his business. And what is his business? Spreading awareness of the need for living green, encouraging millions and millions of people to go green, and encouraging public policies to promote environmental and climatic well-being.
The net carbon footprint of the carbon he uses offset by the carbon he prevents from being used is a massive negative consumption of carbon.
Reardon, you flatter yourself, and prove to everyone else you don't know how to "figure," when you try to compare yourself to Al Gore when, in contrast, you are out pontificating AGAINST the scientific consensus on climate change that Al Gore, as a journalist, is educating others on.

Floyd wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:46 PM:Following up on Reardon's post, another key aspect of DD Wiz's postings is that he sounds authoritative while misrepresenting the facts. Two of his biggest whoppers so far involve the cost of rooftop solar (he loudly stated that my quoted cost of $40,000 was much too high, but that amount was later verified as a "minimum price" in an NCT news article) and his denial of Democrat budget-busting during the Reagan presidency (proven wrong by searching for "reagan budget" in Google and viewing a NY Times article from 1988). While he might be loud and convincing, DD Wiz appears to be nothing more than a unreliable revisionist.

Floyd wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:50 PM:I think the acronym is BANANA, "Build Almost Nothing Around Nearly Anything."

Reardon wrote on Jul 1, 2008 8:54 PM:Again, the post at 7:05 was obviously not from me. An imposter has found a successful method of keeping me from posting, by taking my name and posting fake messages.

It makes one wonder if "dirty tricks" are only done against anyone questioning the Green Nuts. (Yes!) It is pure censorship from the left.

DD: I have addressed the issues, and the issues are the same in energy as they are in the justice field: Lawsuit after lawsuit has immobilized the justice system to the point that it takes an average of 25 years on California Death Row to execute a convicted and sentenced murderer.

Liberals learned from that, and have now obstructed and delayed all forms of energy to the point that we have not built a new refinery in more than 25 years, If you don’t like being called an obstructionist – then quit obstructing. You are one of the “My way or the highway” group – even if in other posts you have also assumed the second tier defense of “I will support other means, but only if they are environmentally viable’ – we both know that no engineering methodology available will satisfy you.

There are nuclear-powered ships and submarines, today, in San Diego harbor – and there have been for decades, but the Feds are USUALLY immune from obstructionist lawsuits. (Or they were, until the environmentalists successfully sued the Navy over the use of SONAR because of whales – but, their obstructionist lawsuit will be reviewed by the US Supreme Court.)

The “delay to destroy” methodology is now visible for everyone to see. If you don’t like the glare of publicity – stop it!

I will make no more posts on this blog -- any further posts are not from me.

Mary wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:14 PM:To Math Teacher. A little prospective - San Diego County is 4,199 square miles. In 2006 peak summer demand in the US was 789,475 Mega Watts. Thus it would take 3,509 plants at 225 Mega Watts per plant. At 10 square miles per plant, that would be 35,090 square miles - or about 8.4 times San Diego county to generate the total US consumption. Yes, quite a bit of land but compared to 155,959 square miles in California and the 3,537,441 square miles (1% of the total US land mass) for the total country a rather miniscule amount of land for safe, clean and reliable electric energy. Go for it.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 1, 2008 10:52 PM:The post from "Floyd" (7:46pm) is completely bogus.
He cites a long-distant reference by me in a different web comments page criticizing his reference to a $40,000 cost as a "minimum price" for solar. I am sick and tired of people telling me that my figures are not realistic. I am not talking hypothetically or quoting ten year old figures. The actual cost that I paid to solarize my house, and produce more electricity than I consume, living in hot inland Escondido, is a fraction of what "Floyd" cites as a "minimum price." I don't know what figure from the North County Times he claims to be citing.
Guess what, "Floyd," the NCT does allow you to include website links to NCT articles, so put up or shut up and cite the article you are citing.
In any case, I don't even care what the NCT prints. They can make mistakes, too, though I am more inclined to believe it is "Floyd" who is the one living in Fantasyland.
In any case, I have provided my e-mail, as I always do, and the North County Times blog editors know who I am. I would be glad to be interviewed by the NCT and provide documentation of exactly the system I have, where I bought it (through a COSTCO program), and exactly how much I paid.
In the meantime, I expect a retraction and apology from "Floyd," but I know he is not man enough to show that kind of ethics.

MathTeacher to Mary wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:17 AM:Your peak power number does not include an offset for fossil fuels used for transportation or heating, so you are only looking at 1/12 of worldwide energy demand (average = 15E12 W in 2006).

Nevertheless, a solar farm covering an area 8.4 times the area of San Diego county still sounds very large to me.

Imagine taking all of the silicon microchips ever produced and laying them out on the ground -- would they cover an area even 1/100 this large?

Safe? Clean? Processing this much silicon will have a significant environmental impact that is not being discussed!

Reardon wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:23 AM:Obviously the post at 8:54 was not me. These weak arguments come from some simple mind impersonating me!

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:52 AM:This morning's NCT published letters page includes selections from this web comments page, and I have to say I am very disappointed with the NCT selection.
I do not object to proponents' comments being selected, however selecting ONLY proponents' comments when there was a vigorous debate showing valid objections by opponents completely ignores all journalistic standards of fairness and balance. If only two comments could be selected, then one from each side should have been published to fairly represent the comments page being highlighted.

As for the posts attributed to "Reardon," I do not know which posts are legitimately his and which are fraudulent, but I adamantly object to all such impersonations If someone thinks it is funny, it is not; it is juvenile and immature. "Reardon" and I have often disagreed, but I respect his intellect and support efforts to maintain the integrity of these forums. Once again I call on the NCT to use a simple method used by other online forums in which screen names are registered, confirmed with an e-mail address and thereafter available only to the registered user who signs on with a matching password. While this maintains the anonymity of each blogger whose actual real-world identities are still not officially confirmed by the NCT, it does limit the use of one screen name to one designated user.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:09 PM:To add on about the impersonations I am disgusted that this blog is not taken more seriously. We are doing our best to make real changes in this world.