|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 15, 2014 11:21:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 15, 2014 12:09:34 GMT -8
As a side note. I have done some biological consulting at Ivanpah, Blythe and the Barstow mega solar facilities. Regarding the heat that is generated by the mirrors. Workers have left plastic Home Depot Buckets (and other items) under the mirrors for a day and they will be melted by the next day. I have stood under them briefly to warm up on cold winter mornings! I was surprised to see that the mirrors are not safety glass. When they break during extreme winds (due to rocks being picked by the winds) and occasionally for other reasons, they can break into basically long, glass, daggers. You would not want to be under one when they break!! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 15, 2014 12:17:09 GMT -8
Maybe I should have said "scorch". Do you think this is a good idea or would gas or even "clean coal" fired plants be better? |
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Feb 15, 2014 13:05:46 GMT -8
Maybe I should have said "scorch". Do you think this is a good idea or would gas or even "clean coal" fired plants be better? Win, I think a good mix of smart and clean as possible. Diversity helps us, for example, when San Onofre went down and we lost 20% of our energy source, at the same time we had Sunrise Powerlink coming online from Imperial solar and wind sources. Sunrise by itself does not replace San Onofre, but it is part of the mix to help mitigate the loss. We don't want to be like Japan and get so dependent on one power source (nuclear) that when the worst case disaster happens (Fukushima) that you end up shutting down all the nuke plants for retrofits. I think since the San Onofre footprint is already there, plus some of the infrastructure, replace it with the cleanest gas, oil or other cutting edge power plant available. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 15, 2014 14:40:41 GMT -8
Every energy source has drawbacks to them. Taxpayers subsidize all of them as well.
|
|
