I understand the whole NIMBY hub bub and I certainly don't want a Nuclear

[WCGreen]

Power Plant anywhere near me, but, and this is a big but, we are running out of backyards.

I understand and can see why, for instance, Barbara Boxer is raising concerns about Solar Power taking over the pristine desert areas of California. I too would love to see all wilderness areas preserved for future generations.

But, and it's a big but, what good is preserving the desert if the world succumbs to violent climate change? Who would be around to enjoy the desert if the people aren't here or are so stressed out with coping with a Brave New World to care about anything environmental? And who is to say that the deserts wouldn't be irreversibly damaged by climate Change.

I live between two nuclear power plants. One about 65 miles to the east and one about 70 miles to the west. Both have had problems over the years and both have been closed down by the Nuclear regulatory agents.

And what about all the coal power plants that are spewing not only greenhouse gas into the air but choking people with particular pollution.

This doesn't even mention the several Nuclear Power plants in California right now.

There is far more potential danger from Nuclear Power and Coal Power Plants to the country than the ruining of an aesthetic properties of a prime area for clean and renewable energy.

Look, I don't want to do anything to ruin the environment. But is it realistic to not at least consider Solar Power in the high deserts areas of the west? Isn't the trade off at least worth the discussion?

I live in one of the most polluted areas of the country. People all over the US have benefited from the environmental desecrating of the Midwest and the Northeast for manufacturing purposes. We don't have enough sun to even make a dent in our energy needs. Nor do we have power from other viable alternative energy sources at our disposal.

All I am asking is that we look at the possibility of spreading the burden of energy production around the country so that we all can have a chance at a cleaner environment.

I know a lot of people are going to take offense to some of what I am saying. But should we take any solution off the table before the discussion is even started?

[izquierdista]

1. Not backyards, basements

Nuclear power belongs underground, like half a mile underground. If the proper geology is selected, then when the time comes to decommission the plant, all that need be done is to cut the cord and backfill the hole.

[MadHound]

2. I agree with what you say, to an extent,

However what's really the kicker is that there more a need to come up with a decentralized energy infrastructure rather than finding whose back yard to put what in.

If we decentralized our energy infrastructure, in essence every single building in this country could become a power plant. Residential houses, office towers and many other building could not only generate all energy they need through a combination of wind and solar, but they could also generate an excess that can be used elsewhere on a smart grid.

However this decentralization would take a large chunk of money from the current major energy players, which is why such a proposition is unlikely to happen. The big energy players are willing to toy with green energy to a certain extent, enough that is good for publicity and such. But they are unwilling to consider what we really need, a decentralized energy infrastructure, thus the only options that are pushed are centralized ones, nuclear, coal, large solar farms, large wind farms, etc. This way they keep control of energy production rather than individuals controlling their own energy production.

Thus any real progress is going to fall on the shoulders of individuals who build or retrofit their houses to be energy independent and who use green sources. Luckily technologies like thin film photovoltaics are making this more of an attractive prospect to more and more people.

[dbackjon]

3. YOU ARE SO WRONG

Nuclear is very much greener than wide-scale solar.

I'd rather be downwind of a nuke plant (oh wait, I am) than to have hundreds of thousands of acres of desert scraped to the bare earth.



Anyone that supports the solar project that boxer opposes is either not a true environmentalist, or does understand the issue.

[kristopher]

4. No true scotsman...

I'd say that anyone that opposes replacing coal with renewables is either not a true environmentalist or does not understand the issue.

How much does that move the discussion?

You say nuclear is "much greener" than wide scale solar. Do you have anything to support that except your opinion. All the academic literature I've read on meeting the goals of climate change say that your opinion isn't correct.

http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#

http://apolloalliance.org/programs/apollo-14/executive-summary/

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85. Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.

Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.

Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.

Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations. T

ier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Raineyb]

5. And how green is all that nuclear waste?

Oh, right, it isn't.

The "nuclear is greener than solar" line is a steaming pile of bullshit.

Regards

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. I read in today's LA Times that Dianne Feinstein is working on a

legislative plan for the deserts that would keep solar and wind projects out of the protected lands. I was not happy to see this. I agree with you that we are running out of back yards. There's plenty of land in our southwest that could be producing a lot of electricity from solar power, and we need to exploit that.

Here's a clip, and a link, to the editorial:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-desert27-2009mar27,0,3252665.story


Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has done a lot of admirable work protecting California's wild desert lands from development, but her latest plans for the Mojave threaten to split the state's environmental community and could stall clean- energy projects whose construction should be among the nation's highest priorities.

Feinstein is working on legislation that would designate hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land as a national monument, which would put them off-limits for solar and wind energy projects. That could result in a green- versus-green confrontation, pitting those who want to protect the desert ecosystem against those who believe renewable-energy projects are a vital part of the struggle to avert catastrophic climate change.

But that's a false dichotomy. According to the U.S. Energy Department, enough sunlight hits a 100-square-mile portion of the Nevada desert to power the entire country, if it could be harnessed. The Southwestern desert is vast, and it should be possible to both protect key habitat for threatened species such as the desert tortoise and build huge solar arrays from California to Colorado.

The desert ecosystem is a terribly fragile one. Though it often looks like nothing is growing there, the desert is actually teeming with life -- life that subsists on a very delicate balance. We strongly support Feinstein's goal of protecting the desert, within reasonable bounds. Those include a recognition that global warming, if unchecked, will be far worse for all the world's species than a few solar power plants.

[Vinca]

7. I would rather live with solar panels than the aging nuclear plant

about 10 miles away. A couple of years ago, right after an inspection, a cooling tower collapsed. It doesn't inspire confidence.

[northernlights]

8. instead of backyards

how about rooftops? Every single rooftop in the sunbelt.

Even up here in Maine, we get a lot of sun for a large part of the year. Our summer days are very long. We're a good place for solar summers and windmill winters...

If I could afford it, I'd take down the 2 maple trees in my front yard and re-roof with solar.

[zulchzulu]

9. People cluelessly don't even want transmission lines, but want solar and wind power

There are been several wind farm projects that have gotten stopped because the NIMBY's were protesting having transmission lines that went through certain areas.

How the f&ck do you think electricity gets produced from those cute solar or wind farms? You need transmission lines! But, no.... they are ugly and you can get cancer if you live 20 feet from a line and never move.

Cook up something in that microwave while you put the cell phone to your ear... that's totally healthy.

As for nuclear power, there have been some great advances in using pellets over long rods to make the waste more manageable. As for solar farms in the desert areas on the West coast, I've been to those desert areas. There is a LOT of land and having a solar farm that perhaps is hidden from purist utopians could be implemented and provide a lot of energy to the smart grid.

Or... we could just put our heads up our asses and let the clueless whiners tell us transmission lines are evil in their emails produced using electricity.