"The Largest Solar Farm in the World"
Out in the West, Governors and state legislatures are taking the lead in the creation of renewable energy technology:
New Mexico is stepping up to the climate change challenge by lassoing its most abundant resource: the sun. In April, state officials signed a lease allowing construction of a massive, $1.6 billion solar facility on state lands near the town of New Deming, in the southern part of the state. The 300-megawatt solar farm, which will generate enough juice to power 240,000 homes, will be the largest solar operation in the world.
With a goal to become the "Saudi Arabia of renewable energy", Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy, is doing exactly what a Western Democrat does to move his/her state forward where the Federal government fails to act.
For dozens of years, the Federal government has been absent from the duty of seriously developing alternative energies and resources. Here we are, at almost $75 dollars a barrel (going higher) and the Federal government's idea of producing energy legislation is a corrupt and dysfunctional energy bill.
Instead of creating more loopholes for automakers, tax incentives for large oil companies and fudging the language of progress, Bill Richardson stepped into a vaccuum and produced change for the citizens of New Mexico.
It is also worth noting that Richardson is one of the leaders of the Western Governors Association's Clean Energy Initiative. By working in concert, Western governors, either Democrats or Republicans are understanding the dire need for diversified energy solutions.
Landon Mascareñaz | July 6, 2006 | Comment on This Post (5 so far) |
Your Name: Your Personal Note: | Your Email: Friends' Emails*: |
Comments
I wrote a news story on this proposed power plant, and the financial foundations for it are somewhat shaky, in my opinion. Although there are many wonderful initiatives for solar energy in the West, the proposed plant near Deming may not be the example I would choose as an illustration of solar energy plants taking off in the West.
Posted by: Stephanie | Jul 7, 2006 11:03:06 AM
Is this your article:
http://www.sandovalsignpost.com/html/eco-beat.html ?
I understand the concern about the cost effectiveness. It is a common argument against renewable energy.
After reading your article, three arguments still stand out to me in proposition for the plant:
First, that the cost of gas and oil IS RISING.
Second, it is very likely that renewable costs will decline with advancing technology. With more and more technology and investment like this project, technology will advance at astounding rates.
Third, even if it doesn't become cheaper than oil or gas but of a comparatively reasonable cost, than it still becomes a stable and clean energy source for the population it serves. It can only get cheaper, really.
Thanks for the reporting and your coverage of western energy issues. I enjoy the High Country Times (my roommate subscribes) and I really dig the issues it chooses to focus on. Thanks.
Posted by: Landon Mascarenaz | Jul 7, 2006 11:06:40 AM
The greatest arguments against alternative energy sources have always involved expense. Tell somebody it's going to cost millions of dollars to get something up and running and they're likely to shake their heads and walk in the opposite direction.
How about we start talking about the expense of an alternative vis-a-vis the expense of the status quo - or, perhaps drilling, digging for fossil fuels? Why doesn't anybody ever show how much it will cost us to drill in Alaska, or continue to dig for coal or tap into natural gas? And, a few hundred years down the line, all these ventures will run dry.
The sun, the wind. These have been sources of energy well before the invention of the combustible engine. But, nobody could figure out how to harness these sources and profit by it. I'm sure they can, now.
Could it be that we value less what is free than what we have to pay money for - or die for?
Sallie
Posted by: Sallie Planty | Jul 9, 2006 11:18:47 PM
Yes, that is my article in the High Country News, and my comment was not intended to imply that solar energy as a medium is overly expensive; in fact, silicon prices are falling as more producers enter the market, and solar, in my opinion, is probably the most viable form of alternative energy. My quibble is mainly with the use of the Deming, NM plant as an example of a burgeoning solar economy in the West; like any new venture, success is largely dependent on the ability to raise sufficient capital and efficiently utilize technology and resources in order to maintain operations, and this company, Solar Ventures, along with its financial partner, Solar Torx, has not been able to clearly demonstrate that it has sufficient financial support OR technical expertise to accomplish its extremely large goals, while on the other hand, there are a number of proposed plants (talk to the folks at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, CO) that seem to have sounder financial backing and a more coherent and organized operating agenda.
- Stephanie
Posted by: Stephanie | Jul 11, 2006 10:01:35 AM
In fact it's worse Sally. Becasue not only are the costs not questioned or scrutinized with the energy of those denouncing renewables, but the externalities are also not calculated. In other words, by not counting the cost of cleaning up a river, or the staggering healthcare costs of a toxic environment to society as a whole, we are completely failing to see the real costs. All we are seeing is the cost to a producer of said resource.
Also, these arguments have always had high stakes. PBS recently aired a portion of a documentary entitled who killed the electric car. It's the latest story of destroying the competition. How about GM and Standard Oil colluding to wipe out trolley cars and turn the US into the prototype for the automobile culture. I highly recommend it. Tragically, we never needed to be stuck up a cul de sac in an SUV with no gas (James Kunstler)...some powerful folks just wanted to make lots of money and stay in control....bummer eh?
Posted by: plaiche | Sep 17, 2006 11:14:39 PM
Ads by Google
(and yes, we know that sometimes they're very, very wrong. Other times, they're right on.)
