Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Solar Energy

If my math is right, that was enough solar added in this one year (outside of residential) for 2M homes. There are 13M homes in the state, according to the census.

The goal is 33% total power in the state to be renewable in 6 years.

This seems like remarkable progress in this arena!

Ken, that's excellent news. Could you please give us a link to the original source?

Excellent news for whom?

It is only excellent news, if it is not be subsidized by rate and tax payers, which it is not.

All this does is increase the cost of doing business.

Whether it is subsidized or not, having a big solar plant go online is great progress.

Sometimes progress is expensive, and sticking with old ways is the cheapest way to go. But in the long run, burning more coal and gas, and importing more oil will get us deeper into trouble, whether it is economically or environmentally.

I drive a dual mode (electric/gas) vehicle for those reasons. It was not the cheapest car I could get, but it sure helps curb the oil import imbalance. The surprising thing is that it is proving to be quite economical, and in several more years is likely to prove the most inexpensive to operate car I could have bought. (It costs me 2 cents a mile in electric mode, which is most of the time.)

I hope the long-term proves to be just as smart for the new solar facility.

Sorry, meant to include:

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/20...tric-grid-than/

WB, it all depends upon if you want to count subsidies equally.

We fought the first Gulf War specifically and strategically to protect our major source of middle east oil from being captured by Saddam, Saudi Arabia, and to recapture Kuwait, another major source.

That war eventually let to 911, and the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So if you want to add up the cost of those wars, including the deaths of thousands of Americans, I'd be happy to compare the balance sheets.

I don't know if you lived through the OPEC embargo decades ago, when Americans waited in lines for hours to get limited amounts of gas. I do. I far prefer to find ways to become independent of such scenarios.

I appreciate that others prefer to declare war on others who have the resources that we covet, and take those things away from them by force. Certainly it's the historical way.

Having spent time in the Sandbox, I prefer to go the route of energy independence.

I have no problem with alternatives...as long as they are not subsidized. They should compete for their business with fossil fuels. Just like Ford competes with General Motor..errr...Chrysler...errrr...make that Toyota.

There isn't anything that is as efficient as fossil fuels and as long as they are inexpensive and plentiful, they should be developed and used...damn, I haven't heard the words peak and oil together for a long, long time.

I just wish all those who are big on these products would be willing to pay the full ticket. Why should I be happy to pay more for electricity? Why should I be happy to see energy intensive business move to places that have lower energy costs? Be the move foreign or domestic. Hmmm...getting the folks who will be losing their jobs to pay for it...nice.

Burning gasoline to power a car wastes 75% of the energy in the fuel as waste heat. Even if oil weren't subsidized, driving on battery power is 1/2 to 1/3 as costly. Electricity can be generated way more efficiently from fossil fuels, and when it can be generated from the sun, the energy is free!

We are not talking about cars or oil! That is why I used fossil fuels rather than gasoline/diesel/heating oil. The last time I looked oil provided less than 2% of generation.

It cost a heck of a lot more to produce kwh of electricity with solar than gas or coal and our utilities have to buy it at a profit.

If it cost more in one location than another people either move to the low cost provider or do their expansion in those locations. The State of California is chasing energy intensive industries away with their policies...see aerospace, furniture and heavy manufacturing.

If the government pays its favored fat cats a subsidy. What is the cost of that subsidy? What opportunity is be passed up to this favored set of million and billionaire a few more sheckels? I believe the economic term is opportunity costs.

The cost of being more green than the guy next door, is the guy next door that isn't so green gets your jobs.

There is a cost to your position, just acknowledge it.

I agree, the corporate welfare for the oil companies should end.

$2.4 Billion: subsidies to the Big Five producers debated and defeated in the Senate in 2011 and 2012

The Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, sponsored by Senator Menendez (D-NJ) was debated and defeated by the Senate for two years running, and would have eliminated $2.4 billion in annual tax deductions for the five major oil companies: BP, Exxon, Chevron, Shell and ConocoPhillips.

$4 Billion: Subsidy cuts President Obama proposed in the 2013 budget.

President Obama has proposed cutting fossil fuel subsidies every year he’s been in office. The projections for savings have varied slightly each year but always hover around $4 billion annually. Congress has never even proposed voting on all of them.

Now that we have the Citizens United vs FEC ruling by the Supreme Court, it will be even more difficult for people to affect the way government works.

Since corporations can throw megabucks at elections, getting subsidies for corporations rolled back is becoming an evermore remote possibility.

You might consider the following: why is gas so much cheaper in the US than in most other countries? It is because it is subsidized. So is coal, so is natural gas.

But you also miss another very important issue: fossil fuels are the source of many, many, many unique chemicals that cannot be produced in any other efficient way. Simply burning up that source seems crazy. You will find that $100 bills burn just fine, but it would be rather crazy to start your fires with them. But it WILL work.

You should also consider the security of fossil fuels. 1 dirty bomb in a coal producing field will have knocked it out for, what, 100 years? Where do you get your energy then? Declare war I guess?

Having diverse sources of energy is a good thing, and concentrating on a variety of clean methods primarily is the best.

Creating subsidies that encourage a good thing, which results in a development of an industry which progressively gets cheaper, is good strategy.

The price of solar panels has dropped more than 90% in the last year or so. Why? Because there was a market for them.

Patton was stopped during WWII because the 3rd Army ran out of fuel. We can continue to follow this model, with the associated risks, or we can look at other models.

LADWP just released an EIR to install 200MW of solar PV panels 10 miles north of Lone Pine on 1,200 acres. The project is called Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch and of course there is local opposition. I think it's a great start and there's room for a lot more of these installations.

Battle for Solar Power in Owens Valley

The Draft EIR is here.

Now if we could just get new solar powered dehydrating toilets for Mt. Whitney...

The dissent by Justice Stephens was concluded with perfection:

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

I appreciate the conversation taking place on this thread, as it is backed by articles, history, and civilized discourse -- three attributes rarely seen on forums.

Thanks for taking the time to participate.

Am quite sure this is the project DWP wants to build across from Manzanar.

I've hiked extensively in that area of the Sierra and Inyos, and what has always struck me is the number of valleys and areas quite out of sight of US395 and public view. Aside from being a few miles away from major transmission lines, they seem like ideal sites for such projects. This isn't just my opinion, but also those of my hiking companions, often retired scientists & engineers from China Lakes NWS.

Sometimes I wonder if DWP's proposals are designed to inflame public opinion, and thereby divert attention away from their pumping and water projects!

I spent some time reading the EIR. It's got maps, photos and it explains the process that led them to this location. This spot had the minimum disruption to the ecosystem and it was far enough from 395 to be low visibility. They actually changed the location as a result of feedback from the public scoping meetings in Lone Pine in 2010.

I also want to emphasize that this project makes economic sense on its owen (pun intended). LADWP is doing this to increase their amount of green energy for state goals and for their own internal policy goals for 2030. They've already exceeded the requirements for reducing greenhouse gas to 1990 levels back in 2011, they're actually on track to be 20% lower than 1990 by 2020 and striving for 30% lower in 2030.

This is a common theme in California, it turned out that the Kyoto Protocol that was so scary to some was actually quite easy to meet and many utilities are already beyond that years ahead of schedule.

LADWP, like most every utility and every major oil company, they recognize the need to reduce their carbon output. Even Exxon Mobile is taking action (while funding science deniers on the side). Visit any oil company website or utility and you'll see they all have plans to reduce their carbon footprint. It makes good business sense and nobody is subsidizing them to do this. The subsidies out there are mostly going to individuals installing roof top solar or buying a high tech car (hybrid, hydrogen, electric) or charging stations. Just like building roads and an interstate highway system, and funding research, the government has a role in setting direction through policy and investment. Like it or not, our government is an important player in developing infrastructure that makes businesses possible.

Mark my words, you will see a lot about hydrogen fuel cell cars in 2015 in California. Every auto maker has a fully functional model in service ready for mass production. Toyota just announced they are going to start selling their hydrogen fuel cell car one year earlier than anticipated. A change on this scale requires financial incentives to get mass production ramped up. And it requires coordination of the fueling stations as the new vehicles hit the road.

> Am quite sure this is the project DWP wants to build across from Manzanar.

A few years ago, LADWP proposed covering the surface of the Owens Lake bed with a solar power array. It probably would have eliminated the need to water the surface to keep the dust problem down.


> you will see a lot about hydrogen fuel cell cars in 2015 in California.

The down-side of hydrogen power is that Hydrogen is created from hydrocarbons -- fossil fuels. I understand splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen is far more expensive.