BallaratBob wrote:Officials say BrightSource is dim benefit to Inyo
Solar energy sounds like a great idea, but when the rubber hits the road it may actually wind up wasting resources and not be cost effective. The devil's in the details, as they say...Solar development in Inyo County sounds like a good idea, but Inyo officials have found the proposed BrightSource Energy mega- solar project in Southeast Inyo along the Nevada border frustrating and potentially costly. According to Inyo County Administrator Kevin Carunchio, The California Energy Commission has most of the authority when it comes to granting permission for the big project. The CEC is expected to come out with a preliminary assessment of the project June 1st. In an earlier press release, Carunchio said, “The primary concern is that the county is being asked to accommodate a $2.7 billion commercial solar-energy project that could end up never paying for its share of the impacts and costs it imposes on the local government and environment because of a purported state property tax exclusion.”
LINK: http://www.sierrawave.net/11402/dim-benefit-to-inyo/
All, of the alternative sources of oil energy that are promoted must be heavily subsidised in order to be cheaper than oil. The one I can think of that comes closest to competing with oil, oddly enough is solar. There are things like hydro electricity. Only problem is there is only so much water. There is a lot of sun and solar technology has made extreme advances in the past few years.
There is also Nuclear energy. It takes an extremely huge amount of fossil fuel to produce and is extremely toxic., so much that if dealt with, with current technology, will insure the extinction of our species from Earth's surface. How anyone could sanely consider it as an alternative source of energy any more than death it's self is beyond my understanding.