about the power plant

[Guest]

All of this country.. http://www.villagephotos.com/pubbrowse. ... ted=819102

[theCryptofishist]

I don't know if and how this might affect the Sempra plant. Will it make it acceptably "clean"? I don't see them planting lots of trees up there, and I don't know if the geology would support the injection of carbon emmissions into the land. Note: meetings all over the country, including Sacramento, if you're interested.

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of the Carbon Sequestration Program

[Federal Register: April 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21514-21518]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ap04-41]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Implementation of the Carbon Sequestration Program

AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces its intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] parts 1500-1508), and the DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR part 1021), to assess the potential environmental impacts from the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Carbon Sequestration Program, which is being implemented by the Office of Fossil Energy.
The Carbon Sequestration PEIS will evaluate the issues and impacts associated with the demonstration and deployment of technologies to implement the key elements of the Program, including: carbon dioxide (CO2) capture; sequestration (geologic, oceanic, and terrestrial); measurement, monitoring, and verification (MMV); and breakthrough concepts. Major initiatives to demonstrate the key elements of the Program may require collaboration with Federal agencies, State and regional governments, and private sector partnerships. The PEIS will analyze impacts of carbon sequestration technologies and potential future demonstration activities programmatically and will not directly evaluate specific field demonstration projects. However, because the PEIS will evaluate issues and impacts associated with regional approaches, opportunities, and future needs for the Program, findings from the PEIS may be applicable to future site-specific projects within the Carbon Sequestration
Program, for which separate NEPA documents that could tier from the PEIS would be prepared. The PEIS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of implementing the Carbon Sequestration Program (the Proposed Action), in comparison with other reasonable alternatives.

DATES: To ensure that all of the issues related to this proposal are addressed, DOE invites Federal agencies, Native American tribes, state and local governments, and members of the public to comment on the proposed scope and content of the PEIS. Comments must be received by June 25, 2004 to ensure consideration. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to receiving comments in writing and by telephone (see ADDRESSES below), DOE will conduct public scoping meetings in which agencies, organizations, and the general public are invited to present oral comments or recommendations with respect to the range of environmental issues, alternatives, analytic methods, and impacts to be considered in the PEIS. Public scoping meetings will be held in geographic locations throughout the United States (see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION--Public Scoping Process for meeting locations and scheduled dates).

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the PEIS and requests to participate in the public scoping meetings should be submitted to Heino Beckert, Ph.D., NEPA Document Manager for Carbon Sequestration PEIS, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507. Individuals who want to participate in the public scoping process should contact Dr. Beckert directly by telephone: (304) 285-4132; fax: (304) 285-4403; electronic mail: [email protected]; or toll-free telephone number: (877) 367-1521.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program or to receive a copy of the Draft PEIS for review when it is issued, contact Dr. Heino Beckert as described in ADDRESSES above. For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, telephone: (202) 586-4600, fax: (202) 586- 7031, or leave a toll-free message at 800-472-2756. Additional NEPA
information is available at the DOE Web site: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/.
Additional information on the Carbon Sequestration Program can be found at the following Web site:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/seque ... index.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

For the purpose of this Notice, the following terms are defined: Carbon Sequestration--The term given to a suite of technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from large point sources, such as power plants, oil refineries and industrial processes, or from the air itself. The carbon dioxide can then be stored in geologic formations, such as depleted oil and gas reservoirs, deep coal seems or saline formations. It can also be stored in plants, trees and soils by increasing their natural carbon dioxide uptake.
Carbon Intensity--The ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to economic output.
CO2 Capture--Refers to a range of technologies and methods employed to capture carbon dioxide in the process stream or at the source of emission. Such technologies may include organic chemical absorbents, carbon absorbents, membranes, sodium and other metal-based absorbents, electromechanical pumps, hydrates, mineral carbonation, and other processes.
Geologic Sequestration--Refers to a range of technologies and methods employed to bind or store carbon dioxide in geologic formations, including depleted oil or gas reservoirs, unminable coal seams, saline formations, shale formations with high organic content, and others.
Oceanic Sequestration--Refers to a range of technologies and methods employed to bind, store, or increase carbon dioxide uptake in the ocean. Such technologies may include deep ocean injection of captured carbon dioxide gas or the enhancement of free carbon dioxide uptake by marine ecosystems through ocean fertilization or other methods to enhance natural absorption processes.
Terrestrial Sequestration--Refers to a range of technologies and methods employed to increase carbon uptake by terrestrial ecosystems. Such methods may involve changes in land management practices, including forestation or reforestation, agricultural practices that enhance carbon storage in soils, and other land reclamation methods.
Measurement, Monitoring, and Verification (MMV)--Refers to a range of technologies and methods employed to measure baseline carbon levels in geologic formations, oceans, and terrestrial ecosystems; to assess ecological impacts of carbon storage; to

[[Page 21515]]

detect leaks or deterioration in carbon dioxide storage processes; and to calculate net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere avoided via technologies for capture and sequestration.
Breakthrough Concepts--Refers to a range of technologies and methods emerging from scientific research that may be employed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or otherwise capture and sequester carbon. Such technologies and methods may involve processes for advanced carbon dioxide capture through biochemistry or enzymes, subsurface neutralization of carbon dioxide, or unique systems that may enhance carbon sequestration.

Background and Need for Agency Action

Since 1997, when the DOE's Office of Fossil Energy consolidated itsfunding of research and evaluations for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, that office has continued to be engaged in research studies, evaluations, and limited field investigations into technologies and methods for capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide. These carbon sequestration activities received increased emphasis with the announcement of the Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI) on February 14, 2002, by President George W. Bush, which calls for an 18 percent reduction in the carbon intensity (the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to economic output) of the U.S. economy by 2012. The consolidated Carbon Sequestration Program, which is administered for the Office of Fossil Energy by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), is seeking to develop a portfolio of technology options that have significant potential for achieving the GCCI carbon goal.
The Program now encompasses more than 80 research and development projects conducted throughout the United States. The programmatic objective is to demonstrate a series of safe and cost-effective technologies at a commercial scale by 2012 and to establish the potential for deployment leading to substantial market acceptance beyond 2012. Because the research and development activities for carbon sequestration are demonstrating the potential readiness of technologies for field-testing, DOE has initiated planning to prepare a PEIS.\ Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased rapidly in recent decades, and the increase correlates to the rate of world industrialization. In 1992, the United States and 160 other countries ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which calls for ``* * * stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.'' What constitutes an acceptable level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere remains open to debate, but even modest stabilization scenarios would eventually require a reduction in worldwide greenhouse gas emissions of 50 to 90 percent below current levels (Carbon Sequestration Project Portfolio, available on the Carbon Sequestration Web site at:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/seque ... index.html).
Technology solutions that provide energy-based goods and services with reduced greenhouse gas emissions are the President's preferred approach to achieving the GCCI goal. The GCCI also calls for a progress review relative to the goals of the initiative in 2012, at which time decisions will be made about additional implementation measures for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. By focusing on greenhouse gas intensity as the measure of success, this strategy promotes vital climate change research and development (R&D) while minimizing the economic impact of greenhouse gas stabilization in the United States.
In combination with improved energy efficiency of fossil fuel utilization and use of low-carbon fuels, carbon sequestration is an option for greenhouse gas mitigation. It involves the capture and storage of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere. The greenhouse gases can be captured at the point of emission, or they can be removed from the air.
The captured gases can potentially be stored in geologic reservoirs, dissolved in deep oceans, converted to rock-like solid materials, or absorbed by vegetation and soils for long-term and stable sequestration.
Current annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are 12 percent higher than they were in 1992, and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that growth in U.S. CO2 emissions over the next 20 years will exceed 30 percent (Annual Energy Outlook, 2004). The projected increase is more significant when one considers that in their analysis, EIA assumes significant deployment of new energy technologies through 2020--for example, a fourfold increase in electricity generation from wind turbines, a doubling of ethanol use in automobiles, and a 25 percent decrease in industrial energy use per unit of output. The need for greenhouse gas emissions reduction could be very large within a few decades. If the potential for carbonsequestration can be realized, it would greatly reduce the cost of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. Approximately one-third of the current U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from power plants, oil refineries, and other large point sources, and the percentage will increase in the future with a trend toward increased refining and de-carbonization of fuels. At the same time, the United States has vast forests and prairies, and is underlain by numerous significant saline formations, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, and unminable coal seams that have the combined potential to store centuries of greenhouse gas emissions. Many options for CO2 storage also have the potential to provide value-added benefits. For example, tree plantings, no-till farming, and other terrestrial sequestration practices can reduce soil erosion and pollutant runoff into streams and rivers. Storing CO2 in depleted oil reservoirs and unminable coal seams containing methane can enhance the recovery of crude oil and natural gas, while leaving a portion of the greenhouse gas sequestered. These value-added benefits have provided motivation for near-term action and create potentially viable opportunities for integrated CO2 capture and storage systems.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is for DOE to continue implementation of its Carbon Sequestration Program with a focus on moving toward GCCI goals and to eventually help meet the requirements of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. To achieve these objectives, the Program needs to consider, evaluate, develop, and implement carbon capture and carbon storage technologies, including effective measurement, monitoring, and verification methods, over a longer-range planning horizon. The Program also needs to provide technological viability data for the GCCI 2012 technology assessment.
The Carbon Sequestration Program encompasses all aspects of carbon sequestration. DOE's NETL Carbon Sequestration Web site, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/ describes all of these aspects of carbon sequestration and provides the public examples of the technologies, relationships, and challenges that this PEIS will address. The Program has engaged Federal and private sector partners that have expertise in certain technology areas; for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and electric utilities in terrestrial sequestration; U.S.

[[Page 21516]]

Geologic Survey and the oil industry in geologic sequestration; and the National Academy of Sciences in breakthrough concepts. The Office of Fossil Energy and the USDA have joint responsibility for terrestrial carbon sequestration activities (sequestration in the biosphere). DOE has collaborated with other Federal agencies for developing general and technical (e.g., terrestrial sequestration, geologic sequestration) guidelines for use in voluntary reporting to the Energy Information Administration on greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated by Title XVI, section 1605(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. On a programmatic level, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Forest Service have been directly involved in the implementation of terrestrial sequestration field projects. The Carbon Sequestration
Program has also cooperated with the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI) Office of Surface Mining under a Memorandum of Understanding to sequester carbon on abandoned mined lands. The Program's longer-term research efforts (breakthrough concepts) are coordinated with DOE's Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, and within theacademic research community. Finally, the Program is working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess the role that non- CO2 greenhouse gas emissions abatement actions can play in a nationwide strategy for reducing greenhouse gas intensity and to identify priority research.
A strong focus is placed on direct capture of CO2 emissions from large point sources and subsequent storage in geologic formations. These large point sources, such as power plants, oil refineries, and industrial facilities, are the foundation of the U.S. economy. Reducing net CO2 emissions from these facilities complements efforts to reduce emissions of particulate matter, sulfurdioxide, and nitrogen oxides, and represents a progression toward fossil fuel production, conversion, and use with little or no detrimental environmental impact. In addition, measurement, monitoring, and verification is emerging as an important crosscutting component for CO2 capture and storage systems, and terrestrial offsets are a vital component of cost-effective, near-complete elimination of net CO2 emissions from many large point sources. See NETL's Carbon Sequestration Web site, described above for further information.
Through the Carbon Sequestration Program, DOE is seeking to develop a portfolio of technologies that hold the greatest promise for the capture and long-term sequestration of greenhouse gases. The timeline for the Program will need to demonstrate the readiness of a variety of safe and cost-effective candidate carbon capture and carbon storage technologies for consideration in deployment at a commercial scale by 2012, if needed, with potential deployment leading to substantial market acceptance beyond 2012. Wide-scale deployment of these technologies will require confirmation and acceptance of their ability to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the near-term while ultimately leading to a stabilized emission rate toward the middle of the 21st century.
DOE proposes that the Carbon Sequestration PEIS will evaluate the issues and impacts associated with the demonstration and deployment of technologies to implement the key elements of the Program: carbon dioxide capture; sequestration (geologic, oceanic, and terrestrial); MMV; and breakthrough concepts (see Definitions, previous). Major initiatives to demonstrate the key elements of carbon sequestration may require increased collaboration with Federal agencies, state and regional governments, and private sector partnerships. The PEIS will analyze impacts of carbon sequestration technologies and future demonstration activities programmatically and will not directly evaluate specific field demonstration projects. However, because the PEIS will evaluate issues and impacts associated with regional approaches, opportunities, and future needs for the Program, findings from the PEIS may be applicable to future site-specific projects within the Carbon Sequestration Program, for which separate NEPA documents that could tier from the PEIS would be prepared.

Alternatives

NEPA requires that agencies evaluate the reasonable alternatives to a proposed major Federal action significantly affecting the environment in an EIS. The purpose for agency action determines the range of reasonable alternatives. At a minimum, DOE expects that alternatives will include the Proposed Action and No Action. Under the Proposed Action, DOE would proceed to implement the Carbon Sequestration Program to achieve GCCI goals with broad participation in a range of technology initiatives, including the demonstration and deployment of promising technologies for: carbon dioxide capture; sequestration (geologic, oceanic, and terrestrial); MMV; and breakthrough concepts on a regional and national scale. For the No Action alternative, the Carbon Sequestration Program would continue along a path comparable to
previous research studies, evaluations, and field investigations.
However, the No Action alternative might jeopardize or limit the most effective approaches for sequestration and hinder the identification and optimization of approaches that could best achieve Program objectives. Under either alternative, individual ongoing and near-term future projects will continue and be subject to separate and specific
NEPA review and documentation.
Under the Proposed Action, the PEIS would analyze reasonable alternatives for implementing the Carbon Sequestration Program. These action alternatives would include the range of technologies and strategies for implementing key elements of the program, including CO2 capture; sequestration (geologic, ocean, and terrestrial); MMV; and breakthrough concepts. Each of these technologies and strategies are explained in detail on DOE NETL Web site. DOE will consider analyzing additional action alternatives that may emerge during scoping and further development of the PEIS. For example, consideration may be given to alternative schedules for implementation of Program components, alternative technologies or variations in the mix of technologies to achieve Program objectives, variations in the implementation of sequestration methods, variations in implementation by geographic region, and other possibilities.
DOE expects that the PEIS findings with respect to potentially significant issues and impacts will inform the DOE decision-making process for selecting technologies to be demonstrated and deployed, as well as for establishing the timetable for their implementation. To that end, DOE is considering analyzing alternatives comprised of combinations of technology and strategic options. The PEIS might also identify technologies that appear critically flawed or that may have serious and unpredictable impacts, which would preclude them from further consideration as reasonable alternatives under the Proposed Action.
Finally, the PEIS will provide the framework for future technology
assessment and field studies for the identification of new Program
needs and future directions for carbon sequestration efforts. As a
programmatic document, the PEIS will indicate issues and potential impacts to be evaluated more closely in site-specific environmental studies for project-specific NEPA documents.

[[Page 21517]]

Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
DOE intends to address the issues listed below when considering the potential impacts of the Carbon Sequestration Program alternatives and technologies for CO2 capture, sequestration, MMV, and breakthrough concepts. This list is neither intended to be all- inclusive nor a predetermined set of potential impacts. DOE invites comments from Federal agencies, Native American tribes, state and local governments, other interested parties, and the general public on these and any other issues that should be considered in the PEIS. The environmental issues include: (1) Potential impacts on atmospheric resources and air quality from technologies used to capture and sequester carbon dioxide, including emissions from associated activities and the construction and operation of support facilities; (2) Potential impacts on aesthetic and scenic resources from the construction and operation of facilities and support equipment, including pipelines and utility corridors; (3) Potential impacts on vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, marine ecosystems, and species protected by the Endangered Species Act or Marine Mammal Protection Act that may result from implementing the Program, including the construction and operation of facilities, support equipment, ocean platforms, pipelines, utility corridors, and changes in land management practices; (4) Potential impacts on cultural and historic resources from the construction and operation of facilities and support equipment, including land-disturbing activities for the construction of facilities, access roads, pipelines, and utility corridors; (5) Potential changes in land use to provide new facilities, access roads, pipelines, and utility corridors, and changes in commercial and industrial development patterns that may occur in areas considered suitable for the implementation of respective technologies; (6) Potential increases in uses of fuels, solvents, and hazardous materials, as well as increases in solid and liquid waste streams from facilities and equipment uses; (7) Human health and safety issues associated with the construction and operation of new facilities, access roads, ocean platforms, pipelines, and utility corridors. (8) Human health and safety issues related to potential unplanned instantaneous release or slow leakage of CO2 from pipelines, facility infrastructure, and sequestration media. (9) Potential socioeconomic impacts from the energy demands for CO2 capture facilities, from the effects of geologic sequestration on oil and gas production, from the effects of ocean sequestration on fishing and tourism, from changes in land management practices for terrestrial sequestration, from the potential creation of a commodity market for trading in CO2 reduction credits, and from other factors associated with the implementation of the Program, including environmental justice issues that may result from the siting of facilities; (10) Potential impacts on utility infrastructure resulting from the demands of new facilities and equipment; (11) Impacts on water resources and quality resulting from land-disturbance and runoff during construction and operation of facilities, equipment, access roads, and utility corridors associated with the Program; geologic sequestration may have impacts on groundwater resources, and ocean CO2 sequestration may have impacts on aquatic chemistry and marine ecosystems; (12) Soil contamination, erosion, and sedimentation may result from construction and operation of facilities, equipment, access roads, and utility corridors associated with the implementation of the Program; changes in land management practices may also affect soils; and(13) Potential hydrologic fractures in formations due to CO2 injection that may affect aquifers and could cause small and localized seismic hazards.

Public Scoping Process

DOE will hold eight public scoping meetings for the Carbon Sequestration PEIS throughout the United States. The objective of the scoping meetings is to seek input from attendees that will be used to refine the issues and focus the Draft PEIS evaluations. The meeting schedules, including any changes to meeting locations or dates, will be published in the Federal Register, the respective local media, and DOE's monthly Carbon Sequestration Newsletter, and be posted at the DOE Carbon Sequestration Web site: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/seque ... index.html. The dates and locations for the meetings are as follows:
• May 6, 2004: Alexandria, Virginia. Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, 5000 Seminary Road, Alexandria, VA 22311.
• May 18, 2004: Columbus, Ohio. Greater Columbus Convention Center, 400 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43215.
• May 19, 2004: Chicago, Illinois. Holiday Inn-- Rolling Meadows, 3405 Algonquin Road, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008.
• May 25, 2004: Houston, Texas. Humble Civic Center, 8233 Will Clayton Parkway, Humble, TX 77338.
• May 27, 2004: Sacramento, California. Lions Gate, 3410 Westover St., McClellan, CA 95652-1005.
• June 2, 2004: Atlanta, Georgia. Hilton Atlanta Northeast, 5993 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Norcross, GA 30092.
• June 8, 2004: Bozeman, Montana. (Open

[KellY]

This is a very good article about the proposed plant, with lots of comment from Gerlach residents. One of the most interesting things is how some locals equate Burners with Sempra, saying they're all Californians messing with their turf. BRR would be proud. If burners do get involved opposing the plant, the politcal repercussions in Washoe county should be very...interesting.

Power play

Early plans to build a coal-fired power plant near Gerlach--a couple hours' drive from Reno--divide a rural Nevada community

By Deidre Pike

Not every resident of Gerlach, population 499, opposes a plan to build what could be Nevada's largest coal-fired power plant at the foot of the nearby Granite Mountain Range. Meet Jim Phillips.

It's a warm spring day, and the door of Joe's Gerlach Club is propped open. Phillips sits at the bar, eating peanuts, drinking Miller and expounding the benefits of "growth." Phillips, a self-employed carpenter, was "born and raised" in the town, he says, and if a large energy firm wants to build a coal-fired power plant here, he'll be first in line to help with construction.

"It's going to be a great thing for the town," Phillips says. "These people are crying about water. We got so much water in our tower, it's overflowing and going off into the desert. Now there's no water? I'm not buying it."

At this, a woman sitting nearby turns a bit red, lowers her head and mumbles to the bartender, who sips at his own beer.

"Don't even get me started," the bartender says, also under his breath.

The woman says the power plant is yet another conspiracy of Californians--some wild idea concocted by the same people who flood the town for a week every year during Burning Man, the art festival that attracts about 30,000 people to the nearby Black Rock Desert.

"They've wrecked our town," she says of Burning Man, an event that migrated from California.

And the planned 1,450-megawatt coal-burning power plant? Same thing, she says. Californians are pushing this plan to pollute the far reaches of Washoe County just to generate electricity for their Hollywood homes.

Many other residents feel the same. Yes, some are "crying," as Phillips says, about water. That's because the minimum amount of water required to cool a plant this size--lowball estimate, 15,000 to 16,000 acre-feet per year--would be enough water to maintain nearly 70 communities the size of Gerlach each year. That's enough water to fill Donner Lake (around 9,000 acre-feet during peak runoff season) nearly twice.

"No one here wants it," says Chris Petrell of the power plant. Petrell's working outside Burning Man's Gerlach office on Main Street, across from the bar. Petrell, it turns out, can only speak as a resident of the small town, not as a representative of the Burning Man organization. Burning Man won't take a stand on this controversy.

"This is Ground Zero," says John Bogard, a self-employed potter who lives and works northwest of Gerlach, a couple hours' drive from Reno. He holds up a map of the surrounding Nevada desert. He points to a circle within a circle, the proposed site for the plant--about two miles from his home, studio and the galleries of Planet X Pottery.

"[The majority] of the nation's pollution comes from coal-burning plants. And we'll get all of that. I'll get that. ... We don't get any benefit--just pollution."

The Bogards have lived on their spread for 30 years. They've raised a couple of kids here, supporting themselves by selling the kind of artful ceramics that compel people to drive hours off the beaten path.

The population is sparse out here--just a few ranches spread out over hundreds and hundreds of acres. The land is quiet, except for the birds. The Bogards' home is under the Pacific Flyway, the path migrating fowl use to head from the northern reaches of Canada to the Mexican coast. That's why the Bogards power their home exclusively using several arrays of solar panels and no wind generators. Windmills are a danger to the birds, John says. Cooling ponds of toxic water from a coal plant would be a deathtrap.

John began visiting the area in the 1960s. In the spring of 1974, he moved to the area from Santa Cruz. The rent was cheap.

Now the Bogards own around 250 acres. They know about the effects of wildness on the human soul.

Plans for the plant, dubbed Granite Fox Power, are in the early stages, say representatives of San Diego-based Sempra Energy, the company pitching the proposal. Such issues as the plant's exact size and what kinds of fuels, besides coal, might be used are still being studied. Federal, state and local agencies haven't yet received permit requests for the facility.

But for John Bogard and his wife, Rachel, it's not too soon to warn the public about the detrimental effects of coal plants.

As power plant pollution goes, coal-fired plants contribute 96 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 93 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, 88 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and 99 percent of mercury emissions, according to a study by the Clean Air Task Force that's cited in a Sierra Club fact sheet.

That's why local and national environmental groups are stoking up the anti-plant engine in Gerlach, as they are across the nation. The Granite Fox plan, along with another planned coal-burning plant being considered near Ely, attracted attention from representatives of the Utah Division of Air Quality, who fear for the air over Salt Lake City, as pollution can travel hundreds of miles given the right conditions.

On Bogard's map, it's easy to see just how close--a few miles--the proposed plant site is to the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area. It took an act of Congress to create this protected zone, he notes. That work should not be negated by a few permits and a vote of the Washoe County Commission.

Also within a short hike is another 18,600-acre area nominated to conservation status--Buffalo Hills, Granite Range and Wall Canyon, which is home to more endangered species and habitats, hot springs and archaeological sites.

"This area you might consider as a good place for even city folk to come out and take a breath," Bogard says. "But that will no longer be the case."

Power lines make noise. At least these 3,100-megawatt cables do, stretched across Highway 447 between Planet X Pottery and the town of Gerlach. The lines snap, crackle and pop like Rice Krispies.

There are no birds singing here, no insects humming. Just the plipping, zapping, clucking of this nonstop 850-mile power trip from the Celilo Converter Station on the Columbia River in Washington to southern California.

This is not Nevada's power. These electrons--coursing south on the Pacific Direct Current Intertie--are just sounding off in the crisp desert air on their way to Los Angeles. From there, this energy can be used or sold--sometimes sold back to Nevadans. The PDCI is considered one of the most critical power lines in the U.S. power grid. The power flowing along these lines is potentially enough to keep the lights on and refrigerators running in several communities the size of the Truckee Meadows.

It's all about supply and demand.

California, the world's fifth-largest economy, is hungry for power. California power brokers fear that, as in 2000, demand could exceed supply, but attempts to build large new plants there are met with fierce resistance.

A remote stretch of northwestern Nevada--a hop and skip from the PDCI--seems the perfect place to sow an energy farm.

Sempra looks for three things when choosing a site--land, water and a nearby railroad, says Tiffany Frisch, local spokesperson for Sempra.

"We have all three of those in the Gerlach area," she says.

Though Sempra hasn't purchased land or water rights yet, she says the company has options on both.

"We know there's concern on behalf of area residents that their wells will go dry, that wildlife would suffer," Frisch says. "But we're not going to go in and drain everyone's wells. We need water to cool the plant. We're not going to drain the basin in a couple of years when there's a lifespan of 30 years on the project."

If the company can't obtain the needed water resources, it won't be able to build the plant, Frisch says. Before the plant can be considered, a complete environmental-impact statement will have to be done.

Frisch says Sempra is talking with Sierra Pacific Resources and that some power from the Gerlach plant might be available to Nevadans.

The proposed coal-fired plant is billed as a "clean" coal facility--and surely it will be cleaner than antiquated Midwestern coal plants with emissions that are said to be responsible for hundreds of deaths, tens of thousands of asthma attacks and hundreds of thousands of upper-respiratory-disease cases every year.

But though it's "clean," a plan of the size being touted for the Gerlach site could emit more than 6,000 tons of nitrogen oxide ("nox") and about 4,400 tons of sulfur dioxide annually, says Tim Hay, consumer advocate with the Nevada Attorney General's Office.

"Nox is a precursor to ozone pollution," Hay warns. "And we have issues on that in both ends of the state."

Before the 2003 Nevada Legislature, there'd been plenty of talk of building wind farms in the Silver State. Given the number of hot springs near Gerlach, geothermal seemed a promising new source of energy.

In 1997, legislators voted to include sustainable energy in the state's power portfolio.

But not enough change came of this. Perhaps industry leaders were, Hay suggests, merely paying lip service to what we wanted to hear.

"Despite having an early start, we don't have a major new renewable facility under construction in the state," he says. "Oregon, Washington and Colorado have large wind farms. Despite our track record in jump-starting that industry ... we don't have much to show for it."

In the late 1990s, the Piñon Pine Power Project, located at the Tracy Generating Plant, 17 miles east of Reno, came online. It was supposed to be the poster child for a new clean technology, coal gasification. The process, which converts coal to gas, never worked for "more than five minutes" at a time, Hay says, lamenting the loss of about $90 million in taxpayer funds that funded the defunct experiment.

"They're tearing it down for scrap metal as we speak," Hay says. The Tracy plant burns natural gas, which is exponentially cleaner than coal but still a nonrenewable fossil fuel.

Now gas prices are volatile.

"People two or three years ago thought they'd never see another coal plant in the United States," Hay says. "Now, with gas prices escalating and gas supply constrained, coal seems economical."

The Gerlach proposal is just one of three or four new coal-fired plant plans being considered in Nevada. There other sites are in Ely, Moapa and, possibly, Elko.

Though demand for power is growing much faster in Nevada than it is in California, most of the power generated at a new plant near Gerlach wouldn't go to Nevada.

"We'd be using our water and our air quality and tipping tons and tons of nox and other pollutants across northern Nevada and Utah with little benefit at all to Nevada, other than slight increase in the tax base," Hay says. He's already hearing from many who are opposed to the project. As state consumer advocate, he won't be involved in the process until Sempra's plan comes before the Public Utilities Commission.

One of the worst aspects of investing in coal, Hay says, is that it leaves little room in the market for wind, solar or geothermal.

"If you put up one of these big plants it undercuts the efforts to build more renewable resources," Hay says.

The special of the day At Bruno's Country Club & Motel on Main Street in Gerlach is pot roast ($6.85). A family eats steak at one large table. A man walks in and sits at the counter with a sigh.

"Long day?" a man asks from the three stools down.

"Went to Reno," the newcomer replies. "Boy, those people sure don't know how to drive."

"It's those Californians."

Above the bar, a sign reads: "Hungry? Eat an environmentalist." Behind the bar is Bruno Selmi, owner of the country club, motel and also Bruno's Shell gas station. The 80-year-old Italian immigrant has worked for 55 years to build his businesses. Selmi is the American Dream, in the flesh.

It's Selmi's contention that only three or four people in town oppose the coming of a power plant. The project would bring jobs--800 workers to build the plant and about 100 workers to keep it running. It would give the Gerlach economy a needed boost.

"The workers, they spend the money," he says. "If you make money, you're going to spend it."

This winter's been one of the worst he's seen for business.

"If you don't build the power plant," he says, "the town is gonna die. ...This is good for the school, good for the clinic--it's good for everybody."

Selmi's philosophy of life is simple. Work hard and take nothing that you can't pay back. He paid his family back for the money they spent sending him to America at the age of 17.

Is Selmi worried about Gerlach's water supply?

"Why have to worry about water?" he says. "People in the power plant worry about water. You think they spend a billion here if they got no water? If you got no water, you got no power."

And pollution?

Selmi says he completely trusts the judgment of federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"That's why the EPA is there," he says. "If there's pollution, the EPA is going to shut it down. We got laws in America. If it pollutes, they gonna shut it down."

Selmi pauses to mix vodka and orange juice for a man he calls an old friend. He lets his friend use his telephone. Then he continues.

"Life is what you make it," he says. "Don't be bitter. Don't be mad. If you don't like it, this power plant, you can move out. ... In this country, you have a lot of opportunity. ... Everything you see, I build myself."

The smell of fried chicken lingers in the air at the Gerlach Senior Center. Retired educators Ruby and Vernon Ausbrooks, who moved to Gerlach in 1998, take a break from a game of pool to chat about their opposition to the coal plant.

Vernon is on the Gerlach Citizen Advisory Board. He learned about the plans for a coal plant when Sempra requested permits to build an air-monitoring tower at the site. The Gerlach CAB recommended that Washoe County commissioners deny the permit as an early move in opposition to the power plant.

In March, county commissioners approved plans for the tower, which will gather preliminary wind and air-quality data.

The county's decision faced an immediate appeal. Critics argue that the 164-foot wind-monitoring station won't provide accurate data to determine effects of a smoke plume that could rise 650 feet into the air.

Diminished air quality is just one of the Ausbrooks' many fears.

"My concern is that we've got beautiful countryside here," Vernon says. "We've got wilderness areas set aside that the Bureau of Land Management is supposed to protect for us and preserve in the state they're in."

Is there anything Sempra could do to entice these seniors into supporting the coal plant?

Vernon Ausbrooks says no.

"As I was saying to Ruby the other day, if you have a bucket of manure and you stir fresh water into it, theoretically it's cleaner. But it's still a bucket of manure."

Now that he's finished making regular treks into Reno for chemotherapy treatments, Stephen Chandler can get back to his first love, photographing the Black Rock Desert, capturing the place where the land meets the sky.

Chandler moved to Gerlach around seven years ago because other parts of the Southwest were over-photographed. He was attracted to the "otherworldliness" of this area.

"You don't have to go to Mars or the moon. You have it right here in this remote place," he says.

Chandler opposes the power plant for a couple reasons. First, he's been researching many possible causes of cancer and can't imagine that emissions from a coal plant would be much less packed with carcinogens than, say, diesel fumes.

But more than that, he loves the land.

"It's an atrocity to put a big coal plant out in sacred space," he says.

This year, Chandler showed his work at the Nevada Museum of Art. It was his first museum show, the realization of a dream.

Living in a small house on the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Elm Street in Gerlach is the realization of another dream. He first saw the small white house and photographed it in 1988.

"And now I'm living in it!" he says.

Chandler's living room doubles as a gallery for his photographs--long panoramic Black Rock Desert landscapes with glossy surfaces, each illumined by its own set of track lights. There are a few books on a stand: Tao Te Ching, Photoshop, Cancer: 50 Essential Things to Do and a John Grisham novel. About a quarter of the small room is taken up by a large-format printer, an Epson Stylus Pro 9600 that can make prints seven feet long.

"As you can see from my work," Chandler says, motioning to his photo of a brilliant sunset on the playa, "this is all dependent on clear air. If that goes, my work here is done.

"Yeah, it may be good for people who want jobs. But it's shoving a little guy like me out. It ruins the possibility of doing what I do. It ruins the feel of the place. ... It seems to me that Nevada's just shitting in its own backyard."

Those opposed to the power plant in Gerlach know they won't be able to take on Sempra, a Fortune 500 company with the largest customer base of any utility in the United States, and its $2 billion project by themselves. They need to rouse concerned citizens of Washoe County and appreciators of the desert, whether hunters or hikers. These people can lobby the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, the agency in charge of issuing air quality control permits, and the Bureau of Land Management, who'd be approving any rights-of-way permits needed for the project to access public lands. They can closely monitor the creation of an environmental-impact statement. They can work to educate Washoe County commissioners, especially those up for reelection.

"It's not going to be us," Bogard says. "We can't fight a $2 billion project, per se, but if people in the county are up in arms against the thing, that'll delay [Sempra]. If they're delayed, then maybe they'll go away. Then again, maybe not."

Yet people demand power. If the pristine desert isn't the right place to build--and if power companies refuse to invest in renewables--where should new power plants go?

Bogard has a few off-the-cuff suggestions.

"Stick it down in Fallon or in the goddamn test site," Bogard says. "They can fly jets around it and pretend it's Iraq. Put it on Interstate 5, where sections are already poisoned along the aqueduct. It'll give you something to look at when you're driving I-5.

"Or tell [Californians] to turn off their swimming pool lights."

[Hear hear to that last comment.]

[theCryptofishist]

I don't have a swimming pool.
Coal plants are one of cornerstones of the Cheney Energy Policy. Just one more reason to want to know how he came up with it.

[Guest]

We have been out in the hills digging out springs.. Laying french drains with pipe to a trough, helps the critters drink water. What have you done for your planet lately?

Bogard is a pretty smart guy. He has been out at planet X for a long time. He does not think much of bm either. You will notice that my statements about citizens in Northern Washoe County disliking bm are not just opium dreams.

Bogard has a few off-the-cuff suggestions.

"Stick it down in Fallon or in the goddamn test site," Bogard says. "They can fly jets around it and pretend it's Iraq. Put it on Interstate 5, where sections are already poisoned along the aqueduct. It'll give you something to look at when you're driving I-5.

Would be good for burningman too... The air force could pretend it is Baghdad and run wargames over it.

Cheney and coal, Cheney is from Wyoming, Wyoming has enormous reserves of coal.. Follow the money.

Remember too that Nevada is just a colonial outpost of California. The money from Virginia City built San Francisco. bm in Nevada= Happy Valley in Kenya, 1920's. Folks out here see bm as more colonial exploitation of Nevada.

[Ranger Genius]

That Stephen Chandler guy had one thing wrong: ever seen a sunset in the immediate vicinity of a Coal-fired power plant? The gases they emit really affect the light diffraction qualities of the air. Sunsets are spectacular around them.
Right now, however, I wouldn't trust the EPA, since it's being headed up by former UT Governor Mike Leavit, who has quite possibly the worst environmental record of anyone, anywhere. Thanks in part to his leadership, 90% of Utah's power comes from coal.

[theCryptofishist]

Right now, however, I wouldn't trust the EPA, since it's being headed up by former UT Governor Mike Leavit, who has quite possibly the worst environmental record of anyone, anywhere. Thanks in part to his leadership, 90% of Utah's power comes from coal.

A second caution on the EPA. Even under Christie, they were letting all sorts of air issues slide. The Agency can be as politicized by an activist administration, just like any other. I don't know how the air permiting works, but the environmental review process that would be commenting on any DEIS and any possible land transfers or easements from BLM to Sempra is subject to political pressure. And a negative rating on a DEIS, doesn't actually stop the process, although it might serve as a basis for a law suit by a third party.


Back to my pushing for coalitions. If Gerlach residents were, for instance, interested in going to a Sempra stockholder meeting to hold protests, they might be glad of burner couches to crash on--or burner know how in making eye-catching signs. (Yes, I'm ironically thinking of EL wire.) And if they could partner with Earth Guardians (maybe not possible, because of the LLC's neutral position--I don't know enough about it) and have an informational booth at the festival. . . Just brain storming.

[Simply Joel]

So, if they don't build this power plant, where will the "required" electrical power come from?

curiously asking...

joel

[Guest]

Suppose just of the sake of explanation, all electric power came from hydroelectric i.e. dams on streams with turbines. We will stick to California for purposes of simplicity. All of this can be extrapolated out to the country and the world, but.. In California there are, we will say a thousand streams that come down out of the mountains with enough flow and drop to make hydroelectric dams worthwhile. 160 years ago there were no dams and no demand for electricity. By 1900 there were several dozen hydroelectric dams, and a moderate demand. By 1940 there were about a hundred dams and even more demand. By the 1970's there were hundreds of dams topped by the New Melones Dam and the proposed but not yet built Auburn Dam, with a vast demand for electricity. Part of the rationale for these dams was electic production.. Ok? Now extend this to the future, all 1,000 streams now have dams. Do you think that the demand for more electric power is satisfied? Likely not. There will be more power demanded, but all the streams are dammed.

Would it not be wise, rather than damming every American stream, and covering the landscape with powerplants, to stop the increase in demand?

There are a couple of viable ways to prevent these large commercial plants, among these; Every newly constructed building in America should have both active and passive heating and cooling. Every newly constructed building in America should have solar or solar assisted water heating. The fact that this does not happen is criminal.

Let me ask you, at the burning man cult site, are there generators within camps, within RVs, etc? Why not use solar arrays? If every RV that came off the assembly line came with a photo voltaic roof, and a solar water heating rig on the roof, you can imagine the savings in fuel.

Both our sailboat (kept in Mexico) and our home are solar powered. In fact since I got out of the service in 1973 I have been off the grid much more than on it.. It is over time, not much more expensive than being part of the commercial grid. This post is brought to you courtesy of the sun..

[Apollonaris Zeus]

If anything will stop the plants it will be the LACK of water and the size of the plant. Technology sez it can be built with far less emissions with the no visible smoke coming out of the stacks, but those devices are extremely expensive. GW Bush has weaken the EPA clean air acts so that the best anti-pollutions devices don't have to put on them- a pay off to the mid-west elect companies.

The location of the plant is just plain wrong and shouldn't be downwind of an area that might someday have a higher status such as a national monument hopefully not a National Park that would excellerate it demise.

Water is the issue and there isn't enought to go around without some state law to change it or they buy water rights from some just-breaking-even-or-not rancher(s).

The locals have to fight for the best pollution devices and the right not to give up the water. The combination will defeat the plant.

On another note- gas extraction use more energy then just burning the coal in the first place and is equally as polluting. Its just not where the gas is burnt though.

We here in Montana have one of the worlds largest coal reserves: more energy then all of the middle east. It is also low-sulpher based. Highly prised for its relatively clean burning energy. The plants need to be built next to the sources, but they need to have a lot of water to function properly which limits where they are built and some mines have shut down because of high transportation rates. We make sure that they have the proper anti-pollution devices on them and try not to sell out our water rights, but Montana has the strictest water rights laws in the nation which helps and we a constitutional environmental rights- which the republicans are trying denegate.

We also a westerly wind flow and North Dakota is our downwind state so Montana's don't care about them except for a good source of jokes (only kidding)

I was one of the most vocal citizens that help stopped a massive wind generation farm that was intended solely for California markets and it was also the major voice that stopped a loophole in our state EPA laws that stopped many electric generator across our state that were unregulated because they would produce under a certain megawatt lever an fall into an unregulation classification. They would also burn waste fuel from gasoline and deisel fuels which have toxins- less anti-pollution devices and more toxins would have been a heavy metal death trap for us.

A II Z

[Alpha]

Ric,

I applaud your use of solar power instead of relying on the commercial power grid. There are some solar generators at BM but the cost and size are probably responsible for their limited use. Consider: a top-of-the-line Honda EU2000 generator costs $1200 and generates 2kW of power. Under full load it uses a gallon of gas every 4 hours, so to run it 14 hours/day for a week would cost an additional $60 or so. It's hard to find portable solar cells that can generate that much power, but even so I see prices around $7000 for 2kW systems. You'd have to go to Burning Man 97 times to hit the break-even point, even assuming the dust weren't reducing your efficiency.
That's not to say it's a valid excuse. I for one would like to see gasoline prices around $5/gallon -- maybe then Americans would reconsider their giant SUVs and propensity to drive 2 blocks instead of walking.

[Badger]

Bogard is a pretty smart guy. He has been out at planet X for a long time. He does not think much of bm either. You will notice that my statements about citizens in Northern Washoe County disliking bm are not just opium dreams.

Interesting that you dredge up the one person who most people in the know will tell you probably represents the penultimate person who supports the event. Bogard is just a nasty, embittered, loner who I believe doesn't fucking much like anyone for any reason. I know this from personal experience and interactions with the guy. Hell, most people who dislike the event probably get along better with work ranch people than they do with Bogard. Citing him as representative of the sentiments assocaited with anti-BM folks is like suggesting all conservative politicians are in agreement with the Rev. Fred Phelps.

[Guest]

Badger, you ever consider I may be him, or his brother, or his best friend... I am sure not a nasty embittered loner, neither is he(me?),, but he cannot dislike the bmorg more than I.. The article also quoted townies.. Including Bruno,, he is certainly not going to complain. He makes nearly half his yearly income during BM.. I don't talk politics with Bruno, but I do eat his raviolis.

John has not stumbled onto the answer.. I may have thanks, to ya'll.

Alpha,, It is hard to believe someone needs that much power at bm, that is more power than we use at home.. We have a 4.2 kw system that supplies our needs including water pumping, except from the middle of November to the middle of January.. There are four of us,, three of whom are women,, (who are notorious for using more power than men, tp too)

[Alpha]

that is more power than we use at home.. We have a 4.2 kw system

How is 4.2 less than 2?

In any event, I was merely providing a comparison of the costs. That 2kW generator might serve one sound+light system or it might serve a dozen campers. Either way solar is really expensive. (and wind even more so!!)

[theCryptofishist]

How is 4.2 less than 2?

New Math. Besides you have to account for the Black Rock Grinch's habitual skewing when it comes to things BM.

[KellY]

In any event, I was merely providing a comparison of the costs. That 2kW generator might serve one sound+light system or it might serve a dozen campers. Either way solar is really expensive. (and wind even more so!!)

ICP Global Technologies 20780 SolarPRO Plug'n'Play 225-Watt Kit : $1,700

Wind Generator, Defender Industries, Inc., 100w output: $859.99

Your baby brain-damaged by mercury contamination: priceless

[DVD Burner]

[Alpha]

Look I'm all for alternative sources of energy but I'm trying to lay out the relative costs to explain why many people choose to bring generators to BM. Based on what Kelly posted, wind-powered generators are about 14% more expensive than solar.

[Badger]

Badger, you ever consider I may be him, or his brother, or his best friend...

No, but the absolutist contempt you spew towards the event, coupled with the stereotypes and generalizations and entrenched assumptions you bark forth would provide no surprise if you and Bogard turned out to be one in the same. My opinion of Bogard stands. I encountered him one spring day while visiting the playa a few years back. Tried 'hearing' his objections and could actually see where he was coming from for someone who seemed to feel that his solitude and his land was being invaded by a swarm of city folk who were hell bent on intentionally and maliciously desecrating the playa. He lost me at the point in which he started alluding to all the other problems of Washo/Pershing Co., Gerlach/Empire/Nixon being directly related to Burning Man. He quickly ceased talking from the heart and I realized that his contempt was mired more in invective, assumptions and steretypes and a general malicious contempt towards anyone who'd dare step foot on his playa for whatever reasons. His mindset reminds me very much of your own. So much so in fact that it wouldn't surprise me if the two of you sit about in front of your little playa fires and swap theories and assinine ideas about who we are and what we 'represent' to the good people of northern Nevada. It really does sound like a collabortative script which you've hammered out in your idle moments.

I am sure not a nasty embittered loner, neither is he(me?)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Again, my opinion of him is grounded in my own personal experiences with him albeit brief. I've encountered a good number of other folks in Gerlach who have expressed reservations with the event but who were civil in conveying their displeasure with having their town innundated one week out of fifty-two. That was not my experience with your man.

,, but he cannot dislike the bmorg more than I.. The article also quoted townies.. Including Bruno,, he is certainly not going to complain.

And here we agree. I get the impression if there's money to be made Bruno's gonna be in favor of it seeing as he appears to be sitting atop the economic pole as far as potential beneficiaries to Burning Man or a power plant goes. In my experience Bruno no more represents the prevailing opinion of the event than does Bogard.

He makes nearly half his yearly income during BM.. I don't talk politics with Bruno, but I do eat his raviolis.

Now you're starting to scare me.

After one helping of Bruno's ravioli I swore I'd never touch the stuff again. If there were such a thing as crimes against humanity for serving bad - I mean BAD - food, the UN would have hauled Bruno to justice a long time ago for that particular dish.

[Bob]

I love Nevada.

They bitch about all kinds of shit imported from California, but they're happy sell it back to us.



I gave my energy & water at the little blue office.

[Bob]

And I'm still trying to reconcile a boutique ranch rife w/ South American grass maggots as being congruous with a Nevadan state of mind, or minding the store.

[theCryptofishist]

And I'm still trying to reconcile a boutique ranch rife w/ South American grass maggots as being congruous with a Nevadan state of mind, or minding the store.

The Black Rock Grinch is perfectly settled in his world view which justifies everything he does and renders all others criminals. Or you could view the grass maggots as just another form of gambling, in this case with ecosystem destruction.

[Guest]

Don't forget, that garlic is fertilized by solids from the Reno Sparks sewage plant, enjoy.

[Guest]

you think llamas like grass? Might go through your web links and resolve that error. One would think from your post that you were a cattleman, instead of an urban pecore.

[Bob]

There's something about fake Zane Grey odes to exotic mammals, and the whole "my family moved here back in the 70s, man -- no, not the 1870s, dude..." gloss on the boutique ranch lifestyle, that's just so incredibly gay....

er, I meant high...

Somebody shoulda told these guys to Leave No Trace, too. There's certainly not enough of telling other people what to do in this damned world.

[stuart]

ICP Global Technologies 20780 SolarPRO Plug'n'Play 225-Watt Kit : $1,700

so, uh, I need to fork out over $18,000 to run my installation off of solar?

[Alpha]

No, because your installation needs to run at NIGHT. You need to fork over $18,000 and then another couple grand for batteries and chargers.

[stuart]

great point.

I better start having fundraisers.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Hey BRR can you tell me the specifics about the location of the plant. If you have coordinates that would be better.

I find it funny that your ex-gov is the lawyer for this group. Our ex works as a lawyer for Enron and was the national republican chairman. It was he that pushed deregulation here in Montana! Now our electric costs us 150% more then when he was in office.

We're getting a little smarter though. We're buying back the Damns and creating a public electric utility!

A II Z

[KellY]

Hey Alpha,

I wasn't actually targetting you or Burners using generators in general with my comment - merely highlighting the "hidden" cost of our supposedly cheap fuel sources.

Obviously, if we pushed for more alternative energy sources, as individual buyers and governmentally, prices would drop. Once the demand grows, production becomes cheaper. It worked with personal computers and DVD players, no reason it can't happen with solar panels.