Google analytics

Saturday 12 March 2011

Green fail.

 

solar panel

L.A. community colleges' green energy plan proves wildly impractical. The blunders cost taxpayers $10 million.

The Los Angeles Community College District would become a paragon of clean energy. By generating solar, wind and geothermal power, the district would supply all its electricity needs. Not only would the nine colleges sever ties to the grid, saving millions of dollars a year, they would make money by selling surplus power. Thanks to state and federal subsidies, construction of the green energy projects would cost nothing upfront.

Sounds too good to be true.

Oh Noes it is.

He overestimated how much power the colleges could generate. He underestimated the cost. And he poured millions of dollars into designs for projects that proved so impractical or unpopular they were never built.
These and other blunders cost nearly $10 million that could have paid for new classrooms, laboratories and other college facilities, a Times investigation found.
The problems with Eisenberg's energy vision were fundamental. For starters, there simply wasn't room on the campuses for all the generating equipment required to become self-sufficient. Some of the colleges wouldn't come close to that goal even if solar panels, wind turbines and other devices were wedged into every available space.

and

Weather and geology also refused to cooperate.
Three solar power arrays had to be scrapped because the intended locations were atop seismic faults.

And all you out there advocating Wind Turbines Bird Mincers.

Plans for large-scale wind power collided with the reality that prevailing winds at nearly all the campuses are too weak to generate much electricity. To date, a single wind turbine has been installed, as a demonstration project. It spins too slowly in average winds to power a 60-watt light bulb.

Do read about the whole sorry saga over THERE.

7 comments:

  1. "Thanks to state and federal subsidies, construction of the green energy projects would cost nothing "

    Confusing innit?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Captain Haddock12 March 2011 at 20:15

    I do hope you've sent a copy of this Post to that cock-trumpet Huhne FE ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. XX Three solar power arrays had to be scrapped because the intended locations were atop seismic faults. XX

    A bit like certain Nuclear facilitys in Japan?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Could not resist that. Sorry. :-)

    The thing is, those in Japan HAVE survived....till now. As advertised.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wonder how many of their wind generators are still standing?

    ReplyDelete
  6. XX I wonder how many of their wind generators are still standing? XX

    As far as I can find, ALL their politicians are alive and well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Perhaps they should have invested in Wave Energy?

    ReplyDelete

Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.