about the power plant

[Guest]

Apollonarius... Roughly the plant is proposed for N40 46' 00" W119 30'00' just north of the turn off to Smoke Creek desert, along Squaw Creek.

You can see from a map that just down wind, ambient winds are westerlies, is the Granite Range,, a pretty nice place,, big horn sheep , which are dying off. Actually big horn are dying all over the west. Last Labor Day weekend, I was camped above the playa and ran into a biologist who was examining western ranges to see if he could figure out why.. He thought it was a lack of selenium in their feed, selenium is washed out of the soil by acid rain.. The cure? Cut California off, and set it adrift.. Or set out selenium blocks.., but certainly no more coal fired power plants.

Yes ex governors are part of legal prostitution in the West. I think he is mostly a name to be used,, he is pretty old.

I may post a photo next week, there is a natural arch, in Granite, with climbing routes on it near the Black Rock Desert, I am going to scout it. As far as I know no one has done the morphology of the range it is in.. No biotic surveys have been done either.. That is one thing I like about Nevada,, there is still a "frontier"

[Guest]

When you look at solar panels, look at who owns the companies that make them, Arco, BP, etc.. Then you understand why the price is high... The oil companies own their competition..

[Badger]

As far as I know no one has done the morphology of the range it is in.

No one's done a detailed morphology of the range. The Granites are just one of a number of plutonic intrusions that started in the west around 120 MYA and the granite batholiths east of the sierras formed a bit later - around 100-90 MYA. As the angle of repose for whatever plate was subducting in the west decreased, the formation(s) gradually manifested themselves further east. Rule of thumb is that the farther east in Nevada you go the younger the rocks. Don't think you'll find any granites in Nevada younger than 80 million years old though.

[Guest]

Badger I would not be so blatant as to identify the particular range I will be scouting.. It is not the Granite Range, and as you must know hollow arches,, are unusual in Granite. This one is 40 feet high. One of the problems I have in the magizine articles I write is my dislike of publicising locations..

[Guest]

magazine

[Bob]

<expletive deleted>

[Badger]

Badger I would not be so blatant as to identify the particular range I will be scouting.. It is not the Granite Range, and as you must know hollow arches,, are unusual in Granite.

Noted. I read the post too quickly. Arches in granite would be something to behold. I'm assuming then that we're talking meta-sedimentary outcrops or nominal meta-volcanic ones. My bet would be the former - assuming the mechanics are water and/or wind driven and not due to some funky ass exfoliation or weathering process.

Understand the need to not identify location BTW. I know of a few places like that myself.

[Guest]

exfoliation sounds the most plausible.. I may know next week.

[Last Real Burner]

<expletive added back>

[allanon2]

actualy solar costa lot becuase of the process to produce them is extremally high
they through much away

and the raw materials are rare earth elements and are very expensive.
you have to destroy land to get them.
but hey in the end everything has a cost. some now some later. in fact the cleanest eenrgy source is Muclear as logn as you dont look at cleanup cost whent he plant is decomishined.

but yeah solar has a abput a 7 year pay off.

When you look at solar panels, look at who owns the companies that make them, Arco, BP, etc.. Then you understand why the price is high... The oil companies own their competition..

[allanon2]

you can do a 200 watt kit for about 1300 dollar easy. 1000 is do able.
most companies overcharge way too much. This will include a battery backup.

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

[allanon2]

wind would ntop work on the lake bed as its not at all winddy there
you need to be in a valley or near hill crests. so wind at Bm is out fo the question

now a easy 100 watt solar system that would power a TV and microwave. (not fridge) coudl be done. for about 600-700 dollars

[Alpha]

wind would ntop work on the lake bed as its not at all winddy there

Pardon me for resorting to a kiddie acronym but this one has got me LMAO!

[Simply Joel]

wind would ntop work on the lake bed as its not at all winddy there
you need to be in a valley or near hill crests. so wind at Bm is out fo the question

I, too, found this statement to be very laughable... and rips away any credibility the author might have had prior to typing it.

hee hee ho ho, the winds is going to blow...

[theCryptofishist]

[quote="Simply Joel
I, too, found this statement to be very laughable... and rips away any credibility the author might have had prior to typing it.[/quote]You mean I shouldn't go out and invest my money in Mukular Powr either?

[Alpha]

I have plans for a Mucular generator if anyone wants 'em... :-)

[stuart]

non-proliferation violating terrorist!

[Bob]

....Understand the need to not identify location BTW. I know of a few places like that myself.

OTOH, there's an argument (I've got it here somewhere) that all geologic anomolies ought to be nuked, as they lead to bad science.

[Isotopia]

OTOH, there's an argument (I've got it here somewhere) that all geologic anomolies ought to be nuked, as they lead to bad science.

Well yeah. I'm thinking of Devils Tower where Speilbergian pseud-science suggests the Mother Ship hangs out. That shit should have been nuked a while ago.

[Simply Joel]

all i know is.... there was a butt-kicking wind throughout Agust '01 while working for DPW

[Bob]

No comment.

[Bob]

[Bob]

All that, just to shoot a Gary Cooper flick.

[DVD Burner]

[Alpha]

Is that you in the coveralls?

[Bob]

Maker's Mark morning mouth?

Try a Mentos.

[allanon2]

ummm
ok
yeah I dont know anythign about wind power you are right. the center of thepliya has wind over 10 miler perhour for 12+hours perday.
umm yeah

wind would ntop work on the lake bed as its not at all winddy there
you need to be in a valley or near hill crests. so wind at Bm is out fo the question

I, too, found this statement to be very laughable... and rips away any credibility the author might have had prior to typing it.

hee hee ho ho, the winds is going to blow...

[Apollonaris Zeus]

Apollonarius... Roughly the plant is proposed for N40 46' 00" W119 30'00' just north of the turn off to Smoke Creek desert, along Squaw Creek.

Yes ex governors are part of legal prostitution in the West. I think he is mostly a name to be used,, he is pretty old."

So were's the water source for 18,000 gallons?

Squaw Creek is nutin but an intermitten creek- and when are you going to change that Indian offensive nomenclature for a creek?

The plant ain't going to happen with out a dependable water source and there is no know source that can supply it in that valley even with pumping out every drop of undergound water for 10,000 feet deep!

Sounds like Death Valley Gold mine speculating or a GW Bush Oil Company.

If you could get someone to run ads in major paper detailing that. It would stop it cold. Even the company couldn't do it on its own and with buying out every water right in that valley and everyone to the west, north and south.

the plant has got to be downsized to make it unprofitable!

Where the coal source?

No water no plant.
No close coal source. No Plant.

Don't let some fool speculator take you guys for a chump!

A II Z

[theCryptofishist]

Another Sempra project in the works. For those who might want to follow the process or get involved. Note the possible limits on speaking at the public meetings and the involvement of BLM

Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and Public Hearings for the Proposed
Baja California Power, Inc., and Sempra Energy
Resources Transmission Lines

[Federal Register: May 11, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26089-26090]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11my04-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. PP-234 and PP-235]

Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Public Hearings for the Proposed Baja California Power, Inc., and Sempra Energy Resources Transmission Lines

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of availability and public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a cooperating agency, announces the availability of the ``Imperial-Mexicali 230-kV Transmission Lines Draft Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS- 0365) for public review and comment. DOE and BLM also announce two public hearings on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508, and the DOE NEPA regulations, 10 CFR Part 1021. The Draft EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the DOE's proposed Federal actions of issuing Presidential permits to either Sempra Energy Resources or Baja California Power, Inc. (also known as Sempra and Intergen, respectively), or to both, for the construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of two double- circuit, 230,000-volt electric transmission lines that would cross the United States international border in the vicinity of Calexico, California, and connect to separate natural gas-fired electric power plants that have been constructed in Mexico. BLM's proposed Federal actions are the issuance of right-of-way grants to allow the transmission lines to cross Federal lands within BLM's management responsibility.

DATES: DOE and BLM invite interested Members of Congress, state and local governments, other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, organizations, and members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The public comment period will start with the publication in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency of the ``Notice of Availability'' of the Draft EIS, expected to occur on May 14, 2004, and will continue until June 30, 2004. Written and oral comments will be given equal weight, and all comments received or postmarked by that date will be considered in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Dates for the public hearings are:

1. June 17, 2004, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., El Centro, California
2. June 17, 2004, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Calexico, California

Requests to speak at a specific public hearing should be received by Mrs. Russell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section below on or before June 15, 2004. Requests to speak may also be made at the time of registration for the hearing(s). However, persons who have submitted advance requests to speak will be given priority if time should be limited during the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the public hearings should be addressed to: Mrs. Ellen Russell, Office of Fossil Energy (FE-27), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, or transmitted by phone: 202-586-9624, by facsimile: 202-287-5736 or by electronic mail at [email protected].
The locations of the public hearings are:

1. El Centro City Hall, 1275 W. Main Street, El Centro, California
2. Calexico City Hall, 608 Heber Street, Calexico, California
Printed copies of the Draft EIS are available. Requests should be made to Mrs. Russell at one of the addresses provided above. Alternatively, the Draft EIS is available on the Internet at http://web.ead.anl.gov/bajatermoeis.
Written comments on the Draft EIS may be addressed to Mrs. Russell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed project or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS, contact Mrs. Russell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or Lynda Kastoll, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1661 South Fourth Street, El Centro, CA 92243, Phone 760-337-4421, facsimile: 760- 337-4490, or electronic mail at [email protected].
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202-586-4600 or leave a message at 800-472-2756; Facsimile: 202-586-7031.

[theCryptofishist]

Background

Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that a Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric transmission facilities may be constructed, maintained, operated, or connected at the U.S. international border. The E.O. provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the public interest. In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the impacts of the project on the reliability of the U.S. electric power system and on the environment. The regulations implementing the E.O. have been codified at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329. Issuance of a permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the project, but does not mandate that a project be completed.
On December 5, 2002, DOE issued Presidential permits to Sempra and Intergen based in part on the information contained in an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prepared pursuant to NEPA. BLM was also a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EA and prepared separate FONSIs for its Federal actions. Right- of-way grants were issued by BLM in December 2002. In February 2003, Sempra and Intergen completed construction of the permitted facilities and began exporting electricity to the United States in July 2003.
In March 2003, the Border Power Plant Working Group filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California requesting that the court declare that the EA, FONSI, BLM Decision Notice and DOE Presidential permits failed to comply with NEPA. The court granted in part plaintiff's request ``to set aside the Presidential permits, the rights of way, and the FONSI'' and remanded the NEPA review back to the Federal agencies ``for the preparation of NEPA documents consistent with [the court's May 2 and July 8, 2003 orders].'' At the same time, the court declined to enjoin the operation of the transmission lines immediately and ``defer[red] the setting aside the permits and the FONSI until July 1, 2004, or until such time as superceding NEPA documents and permits have issued, whichever is earlier.'' In light of the concerns raised by the court, and to increase the opportunities for public and stakeholder participation, DOE and BLM decided to prepare an EIS.
In its July 8, 2003 order, the court expressly prohibited DOE and BLM from considering the interim operation of the transmission lines, completion of their construction, or the court's analysis of environmental impacts of the proposed actions in conducting the

[[Page 26090]]

agencies' additional environmental review. DOE and BLM have interpreted this language to require them to conduct their NEPA review from a fresh slate, as if the transmission lines had never been built. Accordingly, the discussion and analysis of the transmission lines are presented in this Draft EIS as if the lines do not exist.
On October 30, 2003, DOE published in the Federal Register (68 FR 61796) a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed projects. The NOI informed the public of the proposed scope of the EIS, solicited public participation in the scoping process, and announced public scoping meetings that were held on November 20, 2003, in El Centro, and Calexico, California. The public scoping period closed on December 1, 2003. Comments received during the public scoping processwere used in preparing the Draft EIS.

Action Alternatives Considered

The action alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIS are:
1. The proposed action of granting one or both Presidential permits and corresponding ROWs. This sets forth the impacts in the United States of constructing and operating the line(s) from powerplants in Mexico, as those plants are presently designed.
2. The ``Alternative Technologies'' action of granting one or both permits and corresponding ROWs to authorize transmission lines that connect to powerplants that would employ more efficient emissions controls and alternative cooling technologies.
3. The ``Mitigation Measures'' action of granting one or both permits and corresponding ROWs to authorize transmission lines whosedevelopers would employ off-site mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in the United States.
NEPA requires the identification of the agency's preferred alternative or alternatives in a Draft EIS if one or more exists or, if one does not yet exist at the draft stage, in the Final EIS, 40 CFR Part 1502.14(e). DOE's and BLM's preferred alternative is to grant both permits and corresponding ROW grants.