What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
84 Comments
- redbullflash, on 05/11/2009, -2/+18Why are they putting it in the foggiest area of the city?! Ironically, it's called the Sunset.
- samby, on 05/11/2009, -2/+12Did you know that 5MW only serves about 5,000 people, or less than 1% of San Francisco?
That's $400 per person *served*. - 4UIDigg, on 05/11/2009, -1/+10That solar array looks like it is the size of several wal-mart parking lots put together. San Francisco is such a small and crowded city, I wonder if they could not find some less-crowded place outside city limits for that solar array, and use that land for a park or apartments instead. If they really want a solar array that large inside the city, maybe they can at least turn the area under it into an apartment block or a parking structure -- it just looks like way too much land to go just to solar cells. Or maybe they could offer some property tax deals for people to install solar cells on the roofs of already standing buildings instead.
It is too bad that the article does not discuss these possibilities and if they were considered by the Board of Supervisors. - nedzeve, on 05/11/2009, -3/+12This isn't single-handedly going to solve the city's energy needs. But the coal, oil, and uranium on this planet aren't going to last forever (and certainly not as long as the Sun). This is a step in the right direction towards clean, renewable energy. I think this is encouraging news.
- nullcodes, on 05/11/2009, -6/+15Did you or the people who dugg you up even read the article. The electricity is going to be sold to the city at 23.5 cents per kilowatt plus 3%. What's electricity purchased from coal plants at nowadays? 7 cents per kilowatt .. go check your own electricity bill. Mine is like 14 cents when transport costs are included .. mind you that 23.5 + 3% doesn't even include that.
- nedzeve, on 05/11/2009, -6/+14Less than $3 a year / city resident. I guess they could burn oil or coal for cheaper, but what's the price of polluted air? Foreign wars for oil? Burying radioactive waste?
- MixMastaKooz, on 05/11/2009, -0/+8It's already in use. It's a reservoir.
- ophello, on 05/11/2009, -1/+9The average power plant puts out 500 MW.
5 MW? Meh. - nullcodes, on 05/11/2009, -9/+165 megawatts isn't even enough to power Gavin Newsom's ego.
- Dotcommer, on 05/11/2009, -5/+12No, We got you loud and clear, but you're turning a blind eye to the point WE'RE making.
It doesn't matter that it will end up being more expensive because it will pay off IN THE LONG RUN. We need to start somewhere and experiment, and frugal, closed-minded individuals like yourself are whats going to hold us back from expanding, exploring, and revising our energy production and consumption. - bcronos, on 05/11/2009, -7/+145 megawatts is NOTHING! Absurdly expensive!!!
- samby, on 05/11/2009, -0/+6Half of it is indeed paid for by federal tax dollars. The rest is paid by higher than average energy costs paid for by the city of San Francisco.
- stickstickly, on 05/11/2009, -2/+85 megawatts? Im waiting for 1.21 gigawatts.
- lamejoketeller, on 05/11/2009, -2/+8No way!
that's my high school on the right, we used to have to jog around that reservoir every week...
go mustangs! - MixMastaKooz, on 05/11/2009, -1/+7True, but it's also a big open space that's current being used as a water reservoir. Might as well put the dead space above and put it to use. Plus, the fog burns off when the sun would be in the optimal spot for solar...
- barfooz, on 05/11/2009, -2/+8That's what SF is all about. Paying a lot of money for image.
- seltaeb4, on 05/11/2009, -5/+11This is what's wrong with Cons.
"Cheaper" does not inherently equal "better."
They never include the long-term costs of anything, especially where energy costs are concerned.
By analogy, it's "cheaper" to dispose of used motor oil down the storm drain; however, it's not "better."
Sure, right now it's more expensive per kw/h, but it's a beginning. When the technology expands, cost will fall. And you won't have blacklung from breathing in a bunch of crappy air, among many other benefits. - samby, on 05/11/2009, -3/+8Why are you dividing by all the city residents? Only 1,000 to 5,000 people can actually use this energy, and presumably no one at all can use it at night. That works out to $400 to $2,000 per person. (2 million divided by 1,000).
This should be doubled for not having any night generation capability, and doubled again because the Feds are paying for half the cost:
http://www.recurrentenergy.com/docs/Sunset%20Reser ...
That gives a final figure of $2,000 to $8,000 per person per year, including the Federal costs. I'm all for renewable energy, but we should be able to make our arguments without playing with the 'facts'. - jewishmafio, on 05/11/2009, -5/+9San Fransisco is a ***** place to put a solar farm where its always foggy or raining... BLEH stupid.
- HappyScrappy, on 05/11/2009, -2/+6$0.235/kWh. That's a colossal ripoff. Even in California where electricity is expensive, this is almost double the going rate.
PLUS 0.03%!
Boondoggle. - samby, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4We are trying to find the annual cost per person served. Why is it irrelevant that the Federal government pays half the cost? That means the 2 million dollars is only half the cost, the real cost is 4 million. This is all documented on the Recurrent Energy website.
Now I see your point about doubling it at night. What I should have said is that its $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per person, but they still have to get their electricity somewhere else at night (and pay for it separately). - Mike17102, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4So how much of your own money will you be writing a check for to fund this "worth it" cause?
Oh, none? Ya, sounds about right. Its only worth it because its other peoples money.
This is idiotic for a state on the verge of bankruptcy (and ***** liberal spending like this is a big part of what got it there). - Impossibilities, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4We should just wait until a fog-based power plant is invented for this location. The Sunset isn't exactly known for its sun.
- samby, on 05/11/2009, -0/+4The average household uses 1.2 kW on average, over a 24 hour period. This obtained by dividing the number of kW hours used per month (920) by the total number of hours in a month (30x24). This was in 2006. Figures provided by DOE.
The manufacturers website (Recurrent Energy) says that the Federal government is providing half the development costs. So the real cost is 4 million.
The Recurrent Energy website says nothing about storing the energy in any air compression system or any other system. It is likely that it will just handle peak load during the day. So again, the 5,000 people will have to get their energy from the grid at night (and pay for it separately).
Except now the cost is 4 million divided by 5,000, or 800 dollars *and* they will have to pay additional for their energy at night.
And 5,000 people is generous, since that is obtained by dividing 5MW by 1.2 kW, and 5 MW is probably only reached around noon. - lamejoketeller, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3no, but all my friends did
lincoln kids didn't smoke enough pot - nedzeve, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3In fairness, Northern California voted against prop 8.
- smeatish, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3The expensive part is the photovoltaic panels, so why not place them on some sunny desert land and "put it to use"? Extra yield would outweigh transmission losses
- gkiltz, on 05/11/2009, -1/+45MW is small as far as the electrical grid goes. The typical coal plant is over 200MW at least. Nuclear plants run in the 500+ MW range.
1990s "Alternative energy" plants that do waste to energy are typically around 50MW per generating unit!
Keep in mind:Electricity, for better or worse, is no different than most commodities: Economies of scale flat-out rule production costs. If we are going to drive all of those electric cars, and actually go anywhere, 5MW is a public relations activity, nothing more! - InorganicMatter, on 05/11/2009, -1/+45 megawatts? Seriously? Nuclear power plants come in multiples of hundreds of gigawatts!
- jewishmafio, on 05/11/2009, -0/+3So you're saying that San Fransisco is a better place than southern california?
Not to mention the fact that the 300 days of sunshine is a misleading figure considering the microclimate of the bay area where certain parts are constantly foggy where others are not? As well as the fact that partly cloudy does not necessarily mean that it isnt sunshine? Cities like LA and San Diego get much more sunny days than San Fransisco... - Mike17102, on 05/11/2009, -1/+4How the ***** will prices drop when its 3x as expensive as the other sources they are currently using?
- nullcodes, on 05/11/2009, -1/+3Yes, I do know about that .. in fact I myself have mentioned it before in previous postings (which you ignored).
http://digg.com/environment/Startup_Promises_Solar ...
http://digg.com/environment/Obama_s_Energy_Pick_St ...
However the cost today is what matters right now when the economy is screwed .. if we go more broke that won't help would it? - JoeHague, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2It's funny cause bayview is almost always sunny/
- jewishmafio, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Sounds like you've got some deep seeded problems buddy. I live in san diego and loathe LA... doesnt mean that SF is more fitting for solar panels.
- Mike17102, on 05/11/2009, -0/+2Gotta love stupid libtards who try to re-define what someone said so they can blather on about something else.
Nullcodes never said "better", he said "amazingly expensive". And he is correct. But Seltaeb4 comes along on the fail train and starts some idiot rant about "oh noes the coals are badz" bla bla bla.
How much more are you willing to pay a month Seltaeb4? Or should I say how much more are your parents willing to pay? - Pinkertinkle, on 05/11/2009, -1/+3I live in the Sunset and I must say it's foggy and overcast half the year. That solar plant will probably be better at producing freshwater through dew collection than generating power. You're much better off putting it in bay view/hunter's point with reliable sunshine.
- slyzxx, on 05/13/2009, -0/+1i Live near NIU. Btw these things are few hundred feet or so. They are opposed because of turning the land into an eyesore
- MacParrot, on 05/11/2009, -1/+2San Francisco would never see any return on that investment. Between the cost of purchase, maintenance, and repair, the current state of technology in solar panels doesn't make it worth it. Solar and wind farms need to be where they can do the most good and generate the most power. Not on people's roofs, but in the middle of the desert for solar and obviously someplace wide open and windy for wind. That's not San Fran
- ScienCentral, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1Depending on where you live, you may have genuine energy choice – but in most states, you probably don’t. And if that sounds like a mixed message, welcome to the wonderful world of alternative energy in a deregulated market with a loophole you could drive an SUV through.
http://tinyurl.com/qgvlrn - artwhite, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1No
- greenroom628, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1i know, there are a ton of open areas in the dogpatch, bayview, or hunter's point area that gets waaaay more sun than the sunset. hell, the east side of po' hill gets the most sun out of any neighborhood, why not build there?
sometimes, i suspect the sf board of supervisors have no idea what goes on in sf. - AngelBunny, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1Someone is going to get very rich but who knows maybe it will pay off in the end.
Honestly, why isn't it a wind farm? Wouldn't that return more power than solar in that part of SF? Also, why isn't it on roofs instead? I look at that picture and I see nothing but roofs. If the city of SF sponsored a program were people get free solar panels on the roof of their buildings with a tax write off for it and the electricity goes to the city that would pay off big in the end. - AngelBunny, on 05/12/2009, -0/+1have you ever been right off the pacific ocean before? it is one of the windiest places in the entire continent ffs.
something tells me you don't know the area - Nacon, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1"Nuclear power plants come in multiples of hundreds of gigawatts!"
megawatts you mean? - pshuman, on 05/11/2009, -1/+21) SF weather is suboptimal. It isn't Seattle or anything but moving it just a hundred miles south east would be a world of difference for sun exposure.
2) What a waste of SF real estate. Move it outside the greater bay area into the lightly populated parts of California. Use the city land for something people related.
3) "23.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, plus 3 percent per year" ?!?! My PG&E bill in California is around 11.5 cents/KWh as a resident. Off the shelf solar panels on my roof + grid tie in over 20 years would be cheaper than that.
4) 5 MW?? Our local nuclear plant is capable of 1122+1118=2240 MW. I'm waiting for the announcement of the other 447 solar plants they will be opening.
I'm all for cleaner energy, but project just doesn't sound like a smart move. - nullcodes, on 05/11/2009, -1/+2@seltaeb4
Yes, I do know that .. in fact I myself have mentioned it before in previous postings.
http://digg.com/environment/Startup_Promises_Solar ...
http://digg.com/environment/Obama_s_Energy_Pick_St ...
However the cost today is what matters right now when the economy is screwed .. if we go more broke that won't help would it? - tordon, on 10/12/2009, -0/+1Yes and cost is always an issue.
http://solarphotovoltaicproducts.com/store/ - mattyj, on 05/11/2009, -1/+2You're still a dumbass. I've lived in San Diego and Los Angeles and moved out of the latter ***** to SF. If you're only criteria for somewhere 'better' to live is sunshine then you're just as nuts as all the plastic fake douches that still live there. I'll take 70 degree summer days over living in a *****' desert any day of the week. You can also keep your crappy public transportation, pollution and homeless problem that is certifiably worse than any other city in North America save New York. Your ideas about San Francisco are obviously fed by what you see on TV.
I happen to live in the Sunset and sure, we get some nasty fog in the fall but it's not 'constantly foggy' or socked in for the whole season. Technically, a 'foggy day' means fog at any time, for any duration. Just like rain. If it's foggy for an hour it's considered a foggy day. The fog often moves in and out very quickly.
This solar array is positioned well up the hell, well beyond the tsunami evacuation zone so it will see less fog than those of us closer from the coast.
So screw you and your awesome 100 degree weather. Have fun running all those air conditioners and burning that clean coal, sparky. - 3The3Dude3, on 05/11/2009, -0/+1I believe that needs at least 1.21 Gigawatts!
- Nacon, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1Its not a waste of money. It is however a waste of space...
They would be allot better of to build something in that space and put solar panels on the roofs of whatever they build. -
Show 51 - 85 of 85 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is