WaterSource wrote on May 04, 2009 02:44 PM: NEVADA:

Why not develop a new NON-TRIBUTARY fresh water Source that can yield ONE MILLION acre feet EACH YEAR for NEVADA and keep Lake Mead FULL and generating 2000 megawatts of renewable energy in a facility that has already been bought and paid for by the American people ?

Development of the Source can be accomplished without damage to the environment or the water rights of anyone, anywhere.

Releases from Lake Mead can restore the 2.4 Billion $$ a year CO River Delta and Salton Sea with plenty left over to make a release of 68,000 AF a year to recharge the old All American Canal to keep the 1.3 million inhabitants of Mexicali from drying up in exchange for Mexico's enforcement of drug and immigration laws.

Throw in cooperation and the Source can be developed to deliver the 1 M AF (325,900,000,000 gallons) WITHOUT POWER and Quagga Mussel free !

Nevada has a Renewable Energy Frontier, if only they will pursue it...

WaterSource waterrdw@yahoo.com

Joe Orawczyk wrote on May 04, 2009 11:54 AM: Remote solar plants will consume large amounts of water and will lose power during transmission to the end user. They also destroy pristine public lands and make a fine target for terrorists. Photovoltaic (PV) panels on roofs consume no water, lose no power in transmission, do not touch public lands, and are one less worry for Homeland Security. But the people making the decisions appear to be advised by those who care more about their own jobs than any potential new ones in the PV market. The electric distribution industry does not make money when it no longer distributes it to the rate payer. Just an observation.

CA gets about 20% of its electricity from Hoover Dam, which, as Lake Mead evaporates, is clearly jeopardized by the ongoing over consumption of water from the Colorado River Basin. Remote solar plants offer a false hope of replacement in that they too will fail without water.

Geezer wrote on May 04, 2009 09:19 AM: Thanks to Ken Salazar and President Obama for their leadership on this. These projects mean real jobs right now for our neighbors who have lost their jobs. The results will serve the public for many years to come, just as the CCC projects of the 1930s have done. We still use CCC-built roads, trails and buildings in national parks and national forests.

sherrylsvgs@yahoo.com wrote on May 03, 2009 10:53 PM: FAKE

DesertLandEntryman wrote on May 03, 2009 06:27 PM: "Renewable energy"?
I heard nothing about hydro-electricity, such as the Hoover Dam that created all those jobs in the Great Depression [forming Las Vegas]! President Hoover ordered construction, & the [DoI] Bureau of Reclamation still produces that FREE hydro-electricity for So. California, via the almighty current of the Colorado River! How about more dams & lakes on the Colorado?
"Habitat restoration"?
Just another BLM scheme to spend that $$$ to blockade public access on our federal public lands.
However, I hear nothing about desert farming [agriculter], via Water Reclaimation Districts [effluent], on BLM public lands, which would reverse our deficit.
It shall come to pass!

QuantitiveQualitive wrote on May 03, 2009 05:58 PM: Quantitive.
Say, honestly, 350 construction jobs per plant (not over exuberant claims in thousands), size 250MWe each, with 35 full time jobs-operators, to created 3.5 million jobs, you need over 9,000 electric power generating plants.
Now, you do the Math 101.

How many years it will take to turn-on the switch on 9,000 plants? Say, 90 years? Say, 10,000 more ESQs, being paid by the State’s Energy Commissions the Intervener’s fee at $450/hour? Say, 22 more consecutive US Presidents? Say, 45 more Revised and/or revisited Renewable portfolio Standards? Say, over 12 million Federal acres in the Vastness of the Mojave Desert, that needs land mitigation of private land at the ratio of 5:1, representing over 60 million acres of private land, and say, a myriad of others, in the cumulative, say, “The Grande Fiasco”?

Qualitive.
Say, 9,000 solar-thermal CSP plants, each with nominal nameplate of 250MWe, at say lowest cost possible of $1,000,000/MW that amounts to $250 million per plant. Then, if 9,000 plants, it will be needed $2,250,000,000,000 (That is over 2 trillion).
Now, you do the Math 101.

Notes to Ex Parte: Whether is a fossil fuel or any renewable energy power generating facility, almost the same math will apply.

This post is by a real solar-thermal CSP developer, (the 5th disruptive solar farms CSP technology) who has bitterly exited said Grande Fiasco. No need to wonder why.

3,000,000_new_jobs wrote on May 03, 2009 12:58 PM: This guy never created a single job in his life. Neither have 97% of all politicians. Sorry, full employment for lawyers and accountants doesn't count. Last Sunday's RJ profiled Bonnie Fogel. That woman creates *real* jobs. She is the sort of person politicians -- especially Democrats -- despise most.

notacon wrote on May 03, 2009 12:49 PM: I see: "Jobs". Obama is handed a failed and further failing economy and he is supposed to generate 3 million jobs in 100 days. Please learn to spell before you move on to "questions" of policy.

davelv wrote on May 03, 2009 12:30 PM: Notice that no price limit is put on how much the energy will cost. Just like the trillions in future budget deficit, spending money without regard to societal and world competitiveness impact isn't sustainable or renewable. The current Congress and Administration even have the Chinese worried about their spending plans.

BTW, I wonder how much per kwhr the solar panels in the picture will cost vs just buying the power? Probably triple or more....And who is paying for this feel-good stuff- taxpayers obviously.

tom1 wrote on May 03, 2009 10:33 AM: What crap.

RJ if you keep this up your readers will leave you. We are tired your, obama's and reid's attempts at manipulation.

The party is over folks. 2010 is upon us and out will go the likes of reid and his cohorts.......then 2012 the big O will be gone as well......LOL.......fools