Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

sponsored by
Business


ENERGY: Searchlight residents grill Duke Energy representatives about wind farm

Sen. Harry Reid supports project







The ongoing tempest over a planned wind farm swept about 10 percent of Searchlight's 600 citizens into the town's community center Thursday afternoon.

Searchlighters peppered executives of project developer Duke Energy with questions: What about the environmental effects of removing carbon-absorbing plants from the site? How will Duke reduce the project's visual impact on the countryside? And why this project in their small town?


Most Popular Stories
  • Buyout to take casino parent private
  • INSIDE GAMING: Echelon could use some tarp assistance
  • Chase makes takeover official
  • A FEW OF THE PAST YEAR'S BIG LEGAL CASES: Recession leaves lawyers rethinking strategies
  • WORLD SERIES OF POKER: November Nine
  • REAL ESTATE: Homebuilders hunt for land
  • TIVOLI VILLAGE: Work intensifies at mixed-use center, with first phase to open in December 2010
  • CityCenter licensing gets own hearing
  • Agency closes alterers of loans
  • Vote paves way for LV-style casinos in Ohio




  • Duke officials had answers: Opening the wind farm would be like removing the carbon output of 30,000 cars from the road every year. Duke has scaled back the project's visual fallout, reducing the number of turbines from 180 to 140, with further reductions pending. And Searchlight is ideal because it's near transmission lines and Las Vegas, where population growth should spur power demand.

    It was the latest in a string of tangles over big energy projects in Nevada, and it was a showdown with all the usual parties: public officials who want utilities to meet renewable-energy mandates; power companies looking to capitalize on government pushes for alternative power; and citizens fighting projects that would alter views, harm wildlife or affect property values.

    Other projects facing recent hurdles include NV Energy's 1,500-megawatt Ely Energy Center, a coal-fired power plant halted officially on June 15 after a years-long fight with environmentalists, and a major solar operation at the outskirts of Nellis Air Force Base's training range. Air Force officials last week questioned the safety of locating the plant so close to the range.

    The Searchlight debate began in December, when North Carolina-based Duke Energy, a Fortune 500 power giant that serves 4.5 million American households, proposed a $600 million wind farm on 24,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management property east of Searchlight, about 50 miles south of Las Vegas. Duke's Searchlight Wind Energy Project would generate 370 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power more than 90,000 homes. The 420-foot turbines would be visible from Searchlight, from U.S. Highway 95 and from parts of Lake Mohave.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a Searchlight native, supports the project.

    "(Reid) thinks it's a good idea," Reid spokesman Jon Summers told the Review-Journal in December. "It's going to bring clean energy to Nevada."

    Searchlight's residents have plenty to say about the idea, too -- much of it negative.

    About 60 locals, the majority of them against the project, came out for Thursday's meeting. Among their concerns: how the turbines would affect vegetation, wildlife, views, property values, quality of life, tourism, air safety, air quality, historic preservation and outdoor recreation.

    Judy Bundorf, a Henderson resident who owns a Searchlight-area home with her husband, said her home would be within a mile of 10 turbines. The generators would pierce the desert peace around their 14-acre property with noise and flashing red night-lights, Bundorf told the Review-Journal before Thursday's meeting. What's more, she said, Searchlight has become a retirement haven for legions of seniors who couldn't relocate away from the wind farm.

    "There are a few young families living in Searchlight, but it's mostly older people," Bundorf said. "They can't afford to pick up and move. They mostly live in trailer houses and they're on fixed incomes."

    Robert Shawn, a member of the town's advisory board, said he didn't think the project was feasible. An airport is under development a mile and a half away, and the turbines could create flight hazards, he said. Plus, the bald eagles that perch in his garden could flee the countryside if the windmills come.

    Town board member Eleanor Shook drew applause when she talked of leaving Southern California 13 years ago for the peace and quiet of Searchlight.

    "We came here to sit on our porch, look at Spirit Mountain and hear the quiet, and now they're going to bring it all back," Shook said. "If we all said, 'No,' would it do any good?"

    Bob Ross, a field manager with the Bureau of Land Management, told Shook her opinion mattered.

    "I want to reassure all of you that the BLM is listening very carefully," Ross said. "The amount of public comment, and the emotion behind it, is very important to us. I'll take all of this into account as the decisionmaker."

    Not everyone who spoke opposed the project.

    Scott Rutledge of the Nevada Conservation League said the threat of climate change demands alternative energies such as wind power, and the Duke farm would be a better environmental choice than a coal-fired or nuclear plant.

    "Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good," Rutledge said. "America has been the biggest polluter globally. We have to turn that around. This is one of those projects where there's an opportunity for a town like Searchlight to be part of a bigger picture."

    Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak moderated Thursday's meeting, taking questions from his Searchlight constituents and reading written comments of residents unable to attend. Those comments included wind-farm advocates, who said they saw the project as a route to energy independence for the United States.

    Sisolak hasn't taken a position on the Duke project, but he said he favors green power.

    "I'm very supportive of renewable energy. My kids would kill me if I wasn't," he said before the meeting. "But I don't know the specifics of this, so this will be a learning experience for me."

    The project would employ hundreds of workers during the six to eight months it would take to build it. Completed, it would employ 15 full-timers.

    The wind farm remains in its earliest stages. The Bureau of Land Management is in the second of six phases involved in drafting an environmental impact statement. The bureau expects to publish a preliminary report in May. It will then accept public comments on the impact study, and incorporate that feedback into a final statement.

    A Duke executive told the Review-Journal in December that the plant's regulatory review will continue through spring 2011.

    Contact reporter Jennifer Robison at jrobison@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-4512.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 32 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    Ecorob wrote on June 29, 2009 01:21 PM: @ Green Dragon Regular

    slan·der (slndr)
    n.
    1. Law Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
    2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.


    Report abuse

    Scot Rutledge wrote on June 29, 2009 12:21 AM: @ Green Dragon Regular-

    You fail to quote an original source or document that refutes the overwhelming body of evidence. You also claim that I am lying about the United States being the largest polluter globally. I was misquoted. I stated at the meeting that "we lead the world in per capita global warming pollution given that we are responsible for a third of the world's CO2 emissions". Do your research and you'll see that I am correct.


    Report abuse

    Green Dragon Regular wrote on June 28, 2009 10:56 AM: @Scot Rutledge-

    You very well may have said all of that at the meeting, but your quote was "America has been the biggest polluter globally..." If you know anything at all, you know this is not a factual statement, either that, or you lied.

    There is also overwhelming evidence to the contrary- Greenland is cooler than it was in the 1940s, the warmest year on record in the U.S. was 1934, the ice in Antarctica is thickening... it goes on and on.

    This all reminds me of something that happened in what is now Danvers, Massachusetts a few hundred years ago.


    Report abuse

    davelv wrote on June 27, 2009 08:20 PM: Timeranger,

    Please google to find out all about air cooling. For example:

    http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/AdvancedCooling/Task_Nuclear.pdf

    and

    http://www.powermag.com/water/Air-cooled-condensers-eliminate-plant-water-use_1361.html

    Just what do you think they need water for? Cooling. Even those that "use" water only raise the temperature of the water, not actually make it disappear. The Colorado river is an excellent source of cooling water.

    Las Vegas could be powered by cheap 15 cents/kwhr new nuclear power instead of 25 cent wind and 50 cent solar. Nuclear is even renewable through reprocessing etc. So why are our politicians so opposed to cheap and renewable nuclear power?

    Please people, think for yourself and do research. High school educated Hollywood actors should not be your source of information. Nor should politicians who have agendas to keep themselves in power nor scientists who want endless money for studies.

    If you want to know about medicine, you ask a doctor. If you want to know about flying you ask a pilot. But god forbid, you want to know about nuclear power you DON'T ask a nuclear engineer! Why not? Because non-scientific liberal educated media has brainwashed you for the last 30 years to be against the safest and cheapest form of mass energy. Start asking why.


    Report abuse

    TimeRanger wrote on June 27, 2009 02:42 PM: "Oh, and nuclear power doesn't have to use a lot of water. It can be built with air cooling if need be." ~Davelv

    Apparently you don't really have a single clue as to how nuke plants generate electricity do you?


    Report abuse

    Scot Rutledge wrote on June 27, 2009 01:02 PM: @ Green Dragon Regular-

    I'm happy to discuss any concerns you have about the veracity of my comments. I stated clearly at the meeting that the science behind global warming is clear, we must take action now in order to lessen our carbon output. Their is an overwhelming body of evidence that proves global warming is anthropogenic.

    I would posit this: The more energy we can conserve; the more we can create from renewable, infinite resources right here in America, the closer we get to true energy independence from Big Coal, Big Oil, and terrorist or hostile regimes that would hold us hostage.




    Report abuse

    Green Dragon Regular wrote on June 27, 2009 12:23 PM: @Ecorob-

    Careful with big words like "slanderous" Kool-Ade drinker. Why is it that scientist after scientist that has retired or removed themselves from the institutions that posited "global warming" are now saying the science is incorrect? Why have several other nations reversed or suspended their "climate change" legislation?

    I made no "slanderous" statement- I only pointed out that Mr. Rutledge stated as factual something that in fact is untrue. It seems anything he says needs to be vetted for veracity.


    Report abuse

    davelv wrote on June 27, 2009 12:15 PM: Global warming is not caused by CO2 from human emissions. CO2 rises as a result of global warming and lags by about 600 years. The ice cores show this, and even Gore's presentations have this effect - John Stossel of ABC showed this on TV last year.

    Just because thousands of scientists say it is true doesn't make it true. Ask all of the scholars who believed the earth was flat or those who believed in sterilization.

    In fact, the last 10 years have shown a global cooling trend. Many scientist believe we are at the start of a new ice age.

    http://www.nbcaugusta.com/weather/news/16011587.html

    Read up on the issue yourself - don't believe those who are using greenhouse gases as an excuse to social engineer America. They used the energy crisis in the 1970s for the same effort, were pushed back by Reagan and now are re-emerging to Europeanize America.

    Further, China, Russia and India are NOT going to stop emitting CO2. Anything the USA does only keeps fossil energy prices lower and thereby helps the economies of our sworn enemies out-develop ours.

    Regardless of the politics etc, if solar and wind can be delivered unsubsidized for 11 cents/kwhr then go for it. Unfortunately, wind is more like 25 cents and solar closer to 50 cents. According to the LVRJ people are objecting to the coming 7% rate rise - they haven't seen anything yet. With Nevada's mandate to use these, we can all expect our electric bills to rise 100 to 200% in the next 7 years.

    Sorry to misspell Tonopah.

    Oh, and nuclear power doesn't have to use a lot of water. It can be built with air cooling if need be.


    Report abuse

    Ecorob wrote on June 26, 2009 09:14 PM: I have to take exception to comments made by Bighorn and Green Dragon. The Nevada Conservation League is an outstanding conservation organization which does great work for Nevada, particularly in the local and state political arenas. To insinuate that they or Scot Rutledge can be bought by Duke Energy or anyone is slanderous and a gross disservice to an excellent group. The planet faces an extreme crises if atmospheric CO2 is not brought down to below a level of 350 ppm - and soon. To do this we must cut our ties to oil and coal and develop renewable energy. Unfortuantely this will mean sacrificing some of our desert and other lands. Such is necessary for the long term survival of our species. Careful site selection is needed to minimize the ecological harm, but renewable energy must be quickly developed. Part of the long term answer is mandating roof-top solar whereever possible. But since this will take time and changes in cultural and legal attitudes, large scale renewable projects are needed now.


    Report abuse

    Nevadans are Numbskulls wrote on June 26, 2009 09:12 PM: Nuclear energy is the only way to go. the cost per KWH is cheaper than fossil fuel and green power combined.

    Wake up you idiots, you made a big mistake by lobbying to have the Yucca Mountain project shut down.


    Read All Comments