If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.

T O P I C     R E V I E W
KlasKat	Story by Drew Zahn of WND Green energy advocates are promoting the newly built, largest solar-power plant in the nation by means of hiding costs and inflating energy output claims, according to a prominent research scientist and founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, who says he has crunched the numbers. Florida Power & Light Company recently flipped the switch on its DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center in Arcadia, Fla., a 90,000-panel photovoltaic solar facility that FPL claims on its website will produce "25 megawatts of clean, renewable energy" to help "a world confronted by the threat of global climate change." Already planning two additional plants in the Sunshine State, FPL boasts, "Over the life of the centers, the solar energy produced will prevent the emission of more than 3.5 million tons of greenhouse gases, which according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is equivalent to removing 25,000 cars from our roads, annually." But the OISM's Dr. Arthur B. Robinson has dug deeper into claims of just how much energy the plant will produce. Robinson cites an FPL estimate published in Renewable Energy News that the plant will produce 42,000 megawatt hours per year of electricity. Robinson calculates that level of output only makes the DeSoto plant a 4.8-megawatt facility, or roughly one-fifth the "25-megawatt" boast. "This fivefold difference is typical of reports on solar installations," Robinson writes. Robinson also criticized the project after comparing its purported energy savings to the $150 million it took to build the plant. We need to do more than solar and wind, Nuclear plants would help but we never hear anything about them because the present administration does not have their hand in it .
MDProwler	Maybe if you lived within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant that had a partial meltdown you would feel differently. I think we have many other options besides nuclear. This message has been edited by MDProwler on 12-01-2009 at 09:56 PM
idive	How much pollution was emmitted in making the parts for that pollution saving plant? As for going nuclear, I work in designing them and I can say first hand that they are not overseen like they say they are. One of my projects was in designing the cooling water system for the reactor on the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant, which keeps the reactor cool, preventing an eventual meltdown. I was actually responsible for checking the drawings. From my desk, they went out to be built as drawn. The draftsman that drew it up called for a ordering too thin a wall on a given reducer in the system. I sent it back to be changed, but a 2nd checker told me it was correct, and to pass it thru. I refused and stood my ground. Mind you, at the time I had very little experience in the industry. The 2nd checker had much more experience and ended up cussing me out for not passing it thru. This brought about a discussion at my desk between my supervisor, the 2nd checker, the design lead, head of drafting, and project engineer, all telling me to pass it thru as drawn and ordered, based on my lack of experience. I refused again. When I was hired, I was told not to sign off on anything I didn't understand or agree with cause if anything happens, it comes back on me. I was able to prove to them I was right, and they then agreed to my changes. Then they thanked me for standing my ground and saving them $60K on ordering the wrong part. Had I just given in and passed it thru to begin with, it would have been built with that reducer having too thin a wall. As you reduce the flow with a reducer, you increase the pressure of what's going thru it. That reducer would have blown out when put in operation and you would have a radiated water contamination leak which could easily have brought on a reactor meltdown. Not to mention possible injuries and deaths, and the lawsuits to follow. Had it been caught before that point, then you have to account for cutting the part out and replacing it with the proper part, costing time and labor as well as new materials. Much more than a mere $60K savings for 1 part. Regulated and controlled for safety? Not like you think. As was stated, would you want to live near one of those plants?
MDProwler	I'm not sure of it made national news but Three Mile Island had a "release" just over a week ago and it took them 5 hours to notify the proper authorities. Much of Baltimore and it's surrounding areas drinking water come from the same river as the power plants cooling water. The plant sits on an island in the river. Reactor #2 has not been used since the accident in 1979.
bjprowler	The Obama administration announced today that contracts have been awarded in excess of $50 billion for the installation of two "green" windmill generators. Bill Nye, "the science guy", Howdy Doodie and Mr Greenjeans will be in charge of construction. Tax payers are asked to put on sweaters, open their wallets and bend over.... This message has been edited by bjprowler on 12-02-2009 at 07:00 AM
KlasKat	Sorry to hear we are still having problems with getting nuclear plants up and running. I have heard that France has hundreds of them and that 80% of their electricity comes from them. I also wonder why we still build damns without putting hydro generators in all of them. We also have plenty of coal which they say we can get it out and make it clean. Why are we not going after all of them?