Chicago-based Invenergy wants to cover about seven square miles of the tiny town of Christiana with solar panels. The town and local residents are suing to stop it.
Great Work - Do a piece on Frank Jablonsky when he tried to save Kewaunee nuclear from a premature shutdown because Dominion Energy made horrible business decisions about refinancing
I love how you humanized the story. It really hits home when you talk about the family living on a small slice of heaven that will get enveloped by this project. Who on earth would want that? It’ll destroy that family’s home value.
The part I hate the most is how the government is running the printing presses on overtime to pay corny capitalists to wage war on the middle class. I won’t mind it as much if the projects actually provided cheap, reliable electricity that actually improved people’s lives. But they don’t. They do the opposite and make the grid more unreliable and more expensive.
Real capitalism doesn’t allow governments to pick favorites like that. But in today’s climate, the road to riches is not hard work or by bettering your customers lives. The road to wealth is in the form of government favoritism and good attorneys.
Why do they all look like they're ready for a lynching? Are they really hateful enough to kill future generations of humanity to prevent scary changes in their twilight years? Maybe the boomers should finally take their AR-trigger finger off the scepter so those of us who have to live in the future can ensure there is one.
People who are not familiar with the way farming communities work might not understand what it means when a town that is “based on agriculture” loses such a large portion of its productive farmland.
Some think it has no external effects if a landowner chooses to switch income generation from food production to passive energy production.
For the town, that choice affects the income of tractor suppliers, grain elevators, fertilizer suppliers, seed suppliers, along with the lost wages for all of the workers who are part of that supply chain. When workers lose income, it affects stores, restaurants, schools, yoga instructors, etc.
Meanwhile the landowner gets an income stream from electricity sales and tax credits without the pesky bother of farming. Essentially no one works on a solar farm.
Many externalities never get mentioned by proponents of "renewables". One of those is the land area taken to produce the same amount of electricity as, say a nuclear power plant. One aspect of that is that that land is forest, then the ability of the planet to suck up the CO2 already in the air that is one thing, together with loss of habitat for nature. Another that I rarely, if ever see mentioned is that id the "renewables are put on arable land, as in this example, that reduces the ability of the planet to feed the extra 50% of people that we are projected to have by that magic number 2050. Can't blame the farmers for wanting to cash in, but there is more to this than just money. You wouldn't think so by the way that countries everywhere are pandering to the rich to make them even richer.
A side issue is that the most optimistic assessment of solar energy will take a tiny bight out of climate change. In fact, when all the carbon released as a byproduct of making solar cells is taken into account, it's possible that the result will be negative. That's true of ALL big high tech manufacturing projects. Solar is not exempt. Also, there are good reasons to suspect that we can triple the efficiency of these cells and reduce the carbon emissions from making them over the next five years. The push to do it NOW is just politicians pretending to do something. Been there, done that.
From a friend in VA. How one county stopped these people.
The worst part is that NONE of that power (little as it is) goes to help the town/county. It goes to "data" centers and big tech facilities. We have a 6500-acre (10 sq mile!) system near me. All the power is "bought" by Amazon, Google, Microsoft and the U of Richmond...all 60+ miles away. This was farm and forest.
How stupid is to put solar in a part of the country with months of snow and rain? I’d rather have the food than the totally unreliable power. Build a nuke plant that covers less grown and produces lots of reliable power instead.
So according to the data in the article the plant is 300MW nameplate, with an avg output of 51.6MW @ a CF% of 17.2% for that region. For $650M. That's $4.8B for a GWe of avg annual output. But it only has enough storage for 2hr of peak solar. Not even enough to even supply late afternoon load.
The cost per unit energy is more than the UAE spent for their 5.6GWe of nuclear, 4 APR-1400's, just finished, @ $4.4B for a GWe output. Except it will supply that power 24/7 for 60-100yrs. Not intermittently & seasonally for part of the day, part of the month for 20-30yrs. Except the battery pack will have to be replaced 1/2 way through, and actual output of both the battery/solar will decline to ~70% @ 15yrs. Maybe another $400M for a replacement battery pack.
And the area of the NPPs would be ~300X less per MWh generated. Instead of 10 sq. mil, more like 0.3 sq. mi for the 447 GWh generated each year.
Wisconsin Solar output would be 1.55X avg in July and 0.47X avg in January. With power demand very high in January. And minimum in April-June when the Solar output will be near max. That is a very inefficient way to generate power. To generate a substantial portion of avg demand would mean discarding the expensive generation during spring & summer months. Pushing the REAL cost much higher.
Presumably the Transmission line to the Gas plant was sized for the full plant output. So the only way the Solar PV can operate is by curtailing the Gas plant generation and thus making the Gas plant much less economical to operate, whereas the solar is being heavily subsidized.
This is an infuriating story repeated over and over again. Because it involves solar power, the affected residents in little out of the way places across the country are portrayed as dumb ,hick luddites by Democrats of all people. The elites only care about the power they wield and don't give a damn about harming citizens college educated Dems consider backward racists. Jamie Dimon eats chef prepared meals while telling Congress that it should take land from working class Americans. The story of corporate influence and intimidation is as old as the first city, but the part about the party of the people supporting it is new and it's revolting.
Great Work - Do a piece on Frank Jablonsky when he tried to save Kewaunee nuclear from a premature shutdown because Dominion Energy made horrible business decisions about refinancing
Lots of opposition to solar farms in Virginia: https://richmond.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/plans-for-a-solar-farm-at-chesterfield-rare-plant-site-spark-opposition/article_2afa68e0-e832-11ed-9289-cfc852707810.html
I love how you humanized the story. It really hits home when you talk about the family living on a small slice of heaven that will get enveloped by this project. Who on earth would want that? It’ll destroy that family’s home value.
The part I hate the most is how the government is running the printing presses on overtime to pay corny capitalists to wage war on the middle class. I won’t mind it as much if the projects actually provided cheap, reliable electricity that actually improved people’s lives. But they don’t. They do the opposite and make the grid more unreliable and more expensive.
Real capitalism doesn’t allow governments to pick favorites like that. But in today’s climate, the road to riches is not hard work or by bettering your customers lives. The road to wealth is in the form of government favoritism and good attorneys.
Why do they all look like they're ready for a lynching? Are they really hateful enough to kill future generations of humanity to prevent scary changes in their twilight years? Maybe the boomers should finally take their AR-trigger finger off the scepter so those of us who have to live in the future can ensure there is one.
Instead of a lawsuit, could the town of Christiana bond itself to purchase the land in question, and then lease it back for farm use?
Robert, what a great article, thank you.
People who are not familiar with the way farming communities work might not understand what it means when a town that is “based on agriculture” loses such a large portion of its productive farmland.
Some think it has no external effects if a landowner chooses to switch income generation from food production to passive energy production.
For the town, that choice affects the income of tractor suppliers, grain elevators, fertilizer suppliers, seed suppliers, along with the lost wages for all of the workers who are part of that supply chain. When workers lose income, it affects stores, restaurants, schools, yoga instructors, etc.
Meanwhile the landowner gets an income stream from electricity sales and tax credits without the pesky bother of farming. Essentially no one works on a solar farm.
Many externalities never get mentioned by proponents of "renewables". One of those is the land area taken to produce the same amount of electricity as, say a nuclear power plant. One aspect of that is that that land is forest, then the ability of the planet to suck up the CO2 already in the air that is one thing, together with loss of habitat for nature. Another that I rarely, if ever see mentioned is that id the "renewables are put on arable land, as in this example, that reduces the ability of the planet to feed the extra 50% of people that we are projected to have by that magic number 2050. Can't blame the farmers for wanting to cash in, but there is more to this than just money. You wouldn't think so by the way that countries everywhere are pandering to the rich to make them even richer.
Recently read about a similar issue in a small place in Norway (yes, solar power plant in Norway, latitude 60 degrees North).
Great video by Robert Bryce:
Germany’s Staggeringly Stupid Nuclear Closures, Robert Bryce:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSt0aEQH6zs
A side issue is that the most optimistic assessment of solar energy will take a tiny bight out of climate change. In fact, when all the carbon released as a byproduct of making solar cells is taken into account, it's possible that the result will be negative. That's true of ALL big high tech manufacturing projects. Solar is not exempt. Also, there are good reasons to suspect that we can triple the efficiency of these cells and reduce the carbon emissions from making them over the next five years. The push to do it NOW is just politicians pretending to do something. Been there, done that.
From a friend in VA. How one county stopped these people.
The worst part is that NONE of that power (little as it is) goes to help the town/county. It goes to "data" centers and big tech facilities. We have a 6500-acre (10 sq mile!) system near me. All the power is "bought" by Amazon, Google, Microsoft and the U of Richmond...all 60+ miles away. This was farm and forest.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6396412727036920&id=100000047684556&mibextid=ZbWKwL
How stupid is to put solar in a part of the country with months of snow and rain? I’d rather have the food than the totally unreliable power. Build a nuke plant that covers less grown and produces lots of reliable power instead.
So according to the data in the article the plant is 300MW nameplate, with an avg output of 51.6MW @ a CF% of 17.2% for that region. For $650M. That's $4.8B for a GWe of avg annual output. But it only has enough storage for 2hr of peak solar. Not even enough to even supply late afternoon load.
The cost per unit energy is more than the UAE spent for their 5.6GWe of nuclear, 4 APR-1400's, just finished, @ $4.4B for a GWe output. Except it will supply that power 24/7 for 60-100yrs. Not intermittently & seasonally for part of the day, part of the month for 20-30yrs. Except the battery pack will have to be replaced 1/2 way through, and actual output of both the battery/solar will decline to ~70% @ 15yrs. Maybe another $400M for a replacement battery pack.
And the area of the NPPs would be ~300X less per MWh generated. Instead of 10 sq. mil, more like 0.3 sq. mi for the 447 GWh generated each year.
Wisconsin Solar output would be 1.55X avg in July and 0.47X avg in January. With power demand very high in January. And minimum in April-June when the Solar output will be near max. That is a very inefficient way to generate power. To generate a substantial portion of avg demand would mean discarding the expensive generation during spring & summer months. Pushing the REAL cost much higher.
Presumably the Transmission line to the Gas plant was sized for the full plant output. So the only way the Solar PV can operate is by curtailing the Gas plant generation and thus making the Gas plant much less economical to operate, whereas the solar is being heavily subsidized.
When are “the powers that be finally admit that a nuclear, hydro, fossil fuel mix is the ONLY wave of the future!!!
This is an infuriating story repeated over and over again. Because it involves solar power, the affected residents in little out of the way places across the country are portrayed as dumb ,hick luddites by Democrats of all people. The elites only care about the power they wield and don't give a damn about harming citizens college educated Dems consider backward racists. Jamie Dimon eats chef prepared meals while telling Congress that it should take land from working class Americans. The story of corporate influence and intimidation is as old as the first city, but the part about the party of the people supporting it is new and it's revolting.