stopgreenpath’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  fair enough

  Well, now that I've got your attention, I will briefly apologize for my cynical tone (although not for my unwavering commitment to my position), and I will thank you for the transmission article, which is a breath of fresh air (and brought out a lot of people who seem to agree with me).  I have had a particularly rough week watching the completely wasted opportunity of this stimulus package be cheered on by Big Enviros, so I'm not feeling particularly patient with the greenwashers right now.   Unfair of me to paint with such a broad brush, I know, but, like the buildup to the war, the media is part of the problem, when I had really hoped it might be part of the solution long before now.

  So, although I have been a little on edge lately, please bear with me, as I have generally been very clear and polite, and unlike the armchair quarterbacks in these conversations, I am at the agency hearings, reviewing the permits, submitting and reviewing comments, on the conference calls and walking the sites where this is all actually happening.  I don't go to Davos to sit in a 5-star hotel room and speculate, I go to Ivanpah to see with my own eyes Bright Source's rendering of the project showing flat, dead, brown dirt as far as the eye can see, and the reality of the dense 4-foot tall creosote forest which is also prime Desert Tortoise habitat.  Don't run spreadsheets on my computer, I read the blatant lies of Sierra Club and NRDC in their 200 page RETI report, claiming that 2 powerlines that aren't even close to breaking ground (one hasn't even started the application process) are "already built" so they can site more Big Energy projects along them and pretend they are much "greener" and much cheaper than they really are, which gives them high rankings on their siting matrix.  So, my position is not theoretical, and I know first hand what is happening, where it's happening and I have a pretty good idea why it's happening.  And many of the people who should be "with us" are actually "against us," and are totally ignorant about what they are killing.  Which is why I'm angry.  It's not fair to vent it on Grist-ers and for that, I apologize.

  The way I see it, there is nothing "pragmatic" about dynamiting and bulldozing and "developing" millions of acres of wilderness far far away from any load centers, and running power down long, leaky powerlines, especially when it just re-entrenches Big Energy monopolies and the ostensible goal is to SAVE the planet.  Who starts saving something by killing a bunch of it off as the first move?  So if you truly are pragmatic, and set all the propaganda aside, no doubt you will agree that using the existing grid (with certain upgrades) to balance renewable energy produced right where it is needed is the "pragmatic" solution, at least for the first phase of the Renewable Revolution:

  1.  No dead ecosystems vs. millions of acres permanently destroyed (not the "postage stamp in the desert" the greenwashers will have you believe - go look at the applications);

  2.  no lost carbon sequestration (the Mojave is as effective as temperate forest - I've linked to that several times);

  3.  no eminent domain (thousands of families are in the line of fire for the tens of thousands of miles of unneeded powerlines being sited as we speak);

  4.  no incredibly toxic, new GHG spewing powerlines (see the Transmission Lies article, and the SPL EIS which I've linked to several times);

  5.  100% of the US' electricity needs can be met on existing rooftops with super-cheap thin film PV at 10% efficiency (I've linked to this at the DOE several times);

  6.  90% of the US' electricity needs can be met on existing brownfields within urban load centers with the same super-cheap thin film PV (same DOE study).  Big Energy can own this since they are obsessed with owning generation;

  7.  reduced monopolies mean reduced opportunities for pricing and supply manipulations (see Enron, Sempra, Shell, CA gas refiners, to name a few);

  8.  much, much, much faster ramp up because permitting is super simple, construction is far less specialized, and financing will super easy if we fund our loan programs like CA's AB 811 (time:  average powerline can take 10 years to permit and build, power plants around 8, PV around 30 days) (financing:  AB 811 is guaranteed repayment, 100% of funds are snapped up within hours of being released, and Big Boondoggle financing is drying up);

  9.  ratepayer generation and civic engagement means millions more conscientious people, plus improved property values, while costing non-generating ratepayers less than massive, faraway infrastructure (especially with those built in, guaranteed profit margins, which, unless I'm mistaken, run about 12% for transmission, even when it's not needed) (also, see Craig Rose's article in the Feb 16 issue of the Nation proving that local solar is cheaper, even without ratepayer generators paying for their own systems, which makes it hugely cheaper);

  10.  Feed in tariffs mean economic stimulus to the middle classes, increased ramp up and oversizing of rooftop systems, and enormous conservation gains (see Germany, Spain, Japan and 40 other countries) and it's still cheaper than remote infrastructure (already discussed);

  11.  rooftop solar is far more reliable and consistent than Big Wind, so although storage solutions may be required once we get to the much smaller "overnight" stage in the paradigm shift, it is far less storage/backup power than Big Wind requires right now - we all know the possibilities for storage since we have cellphones, computers, etc. - it's a question of priorities);

  12.  rooftop solar uses no water, while CSP uses millions and millions of gallons a year, even if it's the wasteful, inefficient air-cooled type that drops in production right when we need power the most - the hottest times.  Gotta keep those dirty diesel trucks driving up and down the rows of mirrors rinsing them off to prevent global warming!  When the plants aren't burning gas, that is (I have linked to several actual project applications several times - this is easily verifiable);

  OK, so I'm tired.  You're bored.  I have apologized.  You have heard me out.  Are we straight?  If you want me to send you any of the myriad docs I have referenced, please email me and I can send them all as attachments.  If there are one or two anyone would like me to publicly link to again, I'm glad to dig them out...
  

  the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

  On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  replacing Greenwashed Dogma with Intelligence

  Well, this is certainly an about-face for this site.  Every time I comment here, in favor of the PROVEN success model of point of use renewable generation, net-zero and net-export structures, and shifting our R & D emphasis to storage and conservation solutions, I am blasted with "decentralized power is bull**" comments from many of the locals (with a few exceptions).  

  All of a sudden, Grist is talking about the higher reliability and the current feasibility of widespread, decentralized, dare I say "point of use" solutions?  How centralization of power might be a bad thing - for ratepayers, free trade, energy modeling, and the environment?  How we need to think beyond straight generation of electrons and make a sustainable, system-wide change that does not rely on destroying exponentially more and more ecosystem to feed Big Energy monopolies' insatiable greed?  

  one might even extrapolate that slaughtering several million acres of effective carbon-sequestering ecosystem and replacing it with huge GHG emissions from high-voltage powerlines and Industrial Power Plants (even if they are partially fueled by sun and wind) shouldn't be the first phase of a "GHG reduction" plan...

  Or is this just a temporary posture to counteract a specific argument by fossil-fuel enthusiasts, and the cheerleading for millions of acres of desert and other wilderness death by (ahem) "renewable energy facilities" will carry on as usual after this?

  pardon my cynical tone, but it's been a long, lonely road trying to make this point.  If you really believe what you say, here, then I am delighted to hear it, and look forward to many future articles advocating for a moratorium on all build-outs of public lands (including Big Transmission), an aggressive ratepayer-generator loan program (along the lines of CA's AB 811, with actual funding), an aggressive feed in tariff for smaller ratepayer generators, and legislation that removes the current caps on ratepayer system sizes, which prevent us from feeding clean power into the grid from our rooftops (all "net metering" and "rebate" programs include this cap, either stated or implied).

  i hope my cynicism is misplaced, and this is not a hypothetical, but rather a "come to Jesus" moment here.  what's it gonna be?

  the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

  On Energy density is not an immutable requirement posted 9 months ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  oh, please

  first of all, gar, if you bother to read the permit applications for the CSP plants, like i do, they clearly state that they waste millions of gallons of water every year.  your pie in the sky theories are just that, theories.  my facts are actual, boots on the ground facts.  real power plants listing their real water usage.  i meet with permitting agencies on a regular basis and discuss this stuff.  real people, real projects, real permitting agencies.  i know what i'm talking about and am hardly the one who has to read brochures from Big Energy whores to get my numbers.  speaking of, what are your sources again?

  you can cherry pick statistics to try to make it look like these are dainty little water-sippers but you cannot contradict my figures because they are real. sorry if that bugs you so much that you have to belittle my sources and try to tar me with the "you are a coal shill" brush, in a sad ad hominem attack, but, once again, you are wrong.  wrong about me and wrong about CSP. it's crap and wastes water.

  local PV will use less water (as in none), and it is still superior to CSP in every way.  no moving parts to constantly break (and they do, just like big wind turbines), no "toxic sludge" waste, no natural gas burned, no "salt cake" waste, plus no dead ecosystem, GHG-spewing transmission lines (another thing you were wrong about), etc.  You are not the only one with a brain, here, Gar, and trying to insult the intelligence and integrity of those of us who have done actual research instead of jacking off with our calculators just discredits you, not me.

  Jon, my position has been insanely (inanely?) consistent.  go read through the last 100 posts I've put on this or 25 other blogs and you will see a non-stop adherence to point of use solutions like rooftop solar, storage, conservation, smart meters, passive solar designs, solar thermal (rooftop), geothermal heat exchange, and efficiency.  saving ecosystems and helping out the middle class while doing it is my trip, and I am never diverted.  

  in fact, the brownfield study (which is completed, no need for another study) also makes it clear that 100% of US' electricity needs could easily be met with thin film ($1/watt) on existing rooftops right at load centers.  done.  settled.  why do you want another study?  why are you acting like this is some vague, distant future but CSP is somehow relevant?  and why would you believe Gar instead of the NREL?  Gar was wrong about those numbers, too.  20% is either a mistake or a lie.

  Of course we need storage, etc. and that is in 75% of my rants on this topic (and is inherent in "point of use solutions" which is the phrase i use in lieu of "rooftop solar" because it is comprehensive) but we need that much more with Big Wind and just as much with Big Solar as we do with rooftop, so double standards are not a useful way to discredit point of use solar, either.

  We have to start somewhere, so why the hell would we start by totally decimating and dehydrating millions and millions of acres of carbon-sequestering ecosystem and sharply spiking GHG emissions??  Sorry, that is pure bollocks and anyone who advocates for that position is trying to kill us all for money.  that's not ok with me.  i am constantly baffled that it's ok with almost everyone else on this so-called "environmental" blog.

  you will see one post where i suggest that since existing suburbia is already built, rather than abandoning it and all running to the inner cities so we could live like rats piled on top of each other, while suburbia still sits there, why couldn't we plant large organic gardens, tighten up the structures for efficiency and cover them with solar panels to make them net exporters of electricity and maximize their existence?  i never got a sensible response to that, by the way.

  i don't believe in waste, and abandoning a suburbia that is already built is just stupid, when it can be converted into a green community.  millions of people (including yours truly) run our businesses from our homes, and drive only a few thousand miles a year, so why couldn't we live wherever the hell we want as long as we are not killing new ecosystems?  i NEVER suggested expanding suburbia, and you know it. just salvaging the parts that were already built from a reverse white-flight phenomenon.

  i don't feel any compulsion to march in lock-step with the "ecobabble" of self-proclaimed environmentalists, most of whom are trying to kill off our planet one Solar Farm at a time, about "high density" this and "sprawl" that.  i think for myself, do my research, and bounce ideas off thousands of people.  i'm not always right, but i am absolutely consistent.  i do not believe in killing the wilderness for private profits and energy production since there is a viable, clean, affordable alternative that happens to be superior in every way.  why i get crucified for that here is beyond me.On World heads for 'water bankruptcy', says Davos report posted 9 months, 1 week ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  i agree, sean

  i know it will shock you, but i agree with you, sean.  in fact, your phrasing is almost identical to that i used on another blog posting elsewhere by Amory Lovins.  i personally don't feel that our starting point has to be "utilities rule the world."  why doesn't the US grow a pair and simply say "these are the efficiency standards required of these products, and these are the efficiency standards required of construction.  deal with it."

  people and utilities would.  deal with it, that is.  the WORST thing we have done is pub utilities in charge of conservation and renewable energy programs.  the worst.  if those programs were run by the state, which has a genuine interest in reducing power consumption and increasing renewables production, things would be working.  right now they aren't.  because no matter how you slice it, you've got the foxes guarding the henhouse, and they know they still make WAY more if you use more.  period.

  decoupling has done very little to impact CA's low consumption - regulation is what has succeeded.  sorry, but that's the truth.  and, decoupling actually acts as a ratepayer DISINCENTIVE, since your "flat fees" are a much greater part of your bill than non-decoupled bills that are based on your consumption.  therefore, you see a much lower impact, as a ratepayer, if you conserve, because the utility has tacked on a $10/month "distribution fee" to compensate themselves for all that "lost" income.

  sorry, folks, but municipal utilities, at least LADWP, are even worse than IOUs when it comes to mercenary, monopolistic megalomania.  the solution is adequate and specific requirements of electronics, appliance, building supplies and contractors/building codes that contain carrot and stick elements.  the utility should just be a distribution network with load-balancing capabilities, and should not even be allowed to be a generator, much less a monopoly generator.

  the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

  On Waxman puts utility decoupling in the stimulus posted 9 months, 1 week ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Big Transmission is Toxic!

  geez, what is wrong with people?  do you REALLY not know that Big Transmission spews HUGE amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere?  if you don't, then are you even qualified to write on this subject?

  this, like most articles on this site supporting Big Energy boondoggles, belong in the "greenwash" section.  Big, Remote Industrial Power Plants that kill millions of acres of ecosystems and deplete groundwater, and lengthy, toxic transmission are NOT GREEN, even if they do use a bit of sun or wind as fuel.

  local, point of use solutions are cheaper, cleaner, greener and fairer, so why do you keep gabbling about Big Energy saving the planet?  they are just doing what they always do - externalizing 100% of their costs onto ratepayers, taxpayers and the planet, only this time, their PR is "Green."  duh!  

  it is embarrassing that so few people are willing to discuss the truth.  are you all hypnotized as soon as someone says "green" "solar" or "renewable?"  snap out of it.  these are more GIVEAWAYS to Big Energy and you should be fighting HARD for loans, grants and feed in tariffs so ratepayer-generators across the country can be the solution.

  the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.

  On Senate stimulus plan looking even better for clean energy investments posted 9 months, 1 week ago 2 Responses