By Dave Beaulieu
Maybe it’s because I’m the middle child in a family of nine kids, but something in me always looks for a compromise in contentious situations. Take the battle-royale that’s taking place in my neighborhood, the northern San Luis Valley. A proposed transmission line that Tri-State Generation wants to build over the Sangre de Cristo Range from Alamosa to Walsenburg, Colorado is being vigorously opposed by billionaire hedge fund manager, Louis Bacon, because it will disturb his private paradise, the Trinchera Ranch. Bacon’s proposal to run the new transmission line north over Poncha Pass instead would, according to Xcel Energy spokesman Mark Stutz, be more costly and “potentially affect hundreds of area landowners.” Tri-State Generation wants this new transmission line because it claims that the San Luis Valley agricultural community needs a more eliable power source. Xcel Energy wants a second power corridor out of the valley so that it can export the power generated by new megawatt-sized solar farms proposed for the SLV. Most Valley residents agree with Mr. Bacon and want to preserve their beloved mountain views and wildlife corridors and leave the beautiful landscape unmarred by additional power lines.
Here’s what I propose as a solution to this wholly unnecessary conflict. Mr. Bacon can put his money where his mouth is and announce that he is setting up a nonprofit foundation (administered by local credit unions) whereas Valley farmers and ranchers can get low interest loans to fund solar installations to run their power-hungry operations, thus immediately lowering their power demands. Due to restraints on water use and over-grazing, many of these farmers and ranchers have been forced to let a section of their acreage go unused year after year. These unused plots would be perfect for setting up small-scale solar farms that can harvest the abundant valley sunshine and not only quickly pay for the solar installations, but also provide another cash crop for the landowner by putting unused electricity back onto the existing grid. After all, those solar installations will still be silently cranking out power during the winter months when the farms and ranches are not producing their traditional crops and their source of income drops. This simple act of taking responsibility for their growing operation’s electric use should appeal to the independent streak that has been a hallmark of these hardy harvesters of vegetables and meat in a high, dry alpine environment.
Tri-State and the local electrical cooperative, San Luis Valley Rural Electric, could also lower the cost of installing solar by offering rebates and incentives to their customers to encourage these solar installations and, at the same time, reduce the need to augment the power line. Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz claimed in a Salida, Colorado newspaper article (Mountain Mail, 1/29/2010) that “solar gardens wouldn’t create utility-scale generation necessary for agriculture and potential solar production in the valley.” This misleading statement reveals the true character of the debate. For their part, it seems to me, that utilities would prefer to monopolize electrical generation rather than allow this more sensible distributed power generation scheme to work. Solar power is a proven, reliable, renewable energy source that can be easily connected to the existing grid directly at the point of use. And the most sensible approach to producing energy, be it with solar panels or coal-fired power plants, is to produce it nearby to where the electricity is being used because of wasteful voltage losses when that power is delivered to residences and businesses further down the line. Perhaps it makes more sense to produce the power that the Front Range requires nearer to these population centers. Why not right next to the Comanche Power Plant in Pueblo or at the Canon West substation? After all the Pueblo, Colorado area receives an average of 8.1 hours of sun daily compared to the 8.8 hours available in Alamosa when dual-axis sun trackers are used. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that voltage losses over a one hundred mile long transmission line alone would negate the seven-tenths of an hour sun advantage that the San Luis Valley is hailed for.
If available space is utilized, including barn and ranch roofs, unused acreage and even un-shaded federal lands, then solar is a reliable power source that can immediately augment existing power sources and completely negate the need for additional, costly transmission lines that few seem to want anyway. After all, it is the ratepayers that will bear the cost of these new power lines. Plus, people (or animals) that live or travel along the proposed route of this transmission line will not have to tolerate the unnecessary intrusion.
The answer to this problem is out there if the players stop looking at their narrow interests and realize that the solution reveals itself nearly every day in the sunny San Luis Valley. If only the moneyed interests would simply open their eyes (and wallets) and see the light.
Dave Beaulieu is a solar installer and lives off-grid in the northern San Luis Valley.
Contact Dave at www.peaksolardesigns.com.
Yes, less power lines, more locally produced power. What about the San Luis Valley’s geothermal potential?
Large scale geothermal appears to be deceptively inefficient from my minimal reserach. With that said, check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland
and this now dated piece says a lot:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/geothermal-project-shut-down-in-ca
Well, Electricity has to come from somewhere. Personally I would like to see every roof top covered in Solar Panels first, combined with true conservation. One thing I find interesting, that in all this talk about domestic energy and the options being; natural gas, coal, atomic energy, wind etc..Why is it that hydro-electricity is never brought up. Is it just too taboo. It is well known that hydro is the most efficient means yet it isnt even an option being discussed. If our macro elec. choices are coal and or atomic I’d take a dam any day!!
Well written article !
Part of the Problem in the SLV is San Luis Valley Rural Electric and their outdated way of paying for Renewable Energy.
Micro-Hydro power is an alternative that could be explored, and there are incentives available for run of the river electric generation:
http://ecodepotusa.com/Products/Sustainable%20Living/Micro_Hydro_Power.htm
I thank everyone for their comments but I’d like to bring the conversation back to the need for additional power lines. Geothermal is being used in the northern SLV on a small-scale at Valley View and Joyful Journey Hot Springs. But deep drilling hasn’t been necessary to utilize the hot water. Most aren’t aware that a fault line lies right along the western edge of the Sangre de Cristo’s and it is unknown what impact large-scale drilling would have on that rift. As far as micro-hydro goes, the seasonal nature of creek flow locally makes that unfeasible. Wind blows intermittently here as well, so turbines don’t make sense. I’m all for a hybrid approach to renewable energy nationally, but solar is by far the most viable renewable energy to tap here in the SLV. That’s why speculators are nosing around the valley once again looking to cash in on the solar bonanza. The main argument of my article is that new power lines are unnecessary and that the power companies haven’t truly justified the necessity of adding transmission lines when the solar energy produced in the SLV isn’t even used here but, instead, is exported to the Front Range. Since it makes more sense to produce that energy nearer to the consumer then it’s obvious to me that Tri-State (a for-profit corporation that sells energy to non-profit local electric coperatives) is merely greenwashing their proposal for new lines now that Xcel wants to export solar power out of the Valley. And the local electric cooperatives are being disingenuous in their claim that solar won’t decrease the supposed stress on their system. If they instead encouraged distributed generation by helping co-op “members” to go solar, then their system will be less stressed and additional power lines will be unnecessary. As usual it comes down to their bottom line. The power companies prefer that you pay them $$ for the power that you use rather than encourage renewables generated at the point-of-use. They could take the millions they plan to spend on ugly power lines and help reduce the cost of putting solar on your roof. I won’t be holding my breath waiting for them to do the right thing.
Thank you Dave.
In the article above I state that “Perhaps it makes more sense to produce the power that the Front Range requires nearer to these population centers. Why not right next to the Comanche Power Plant in Pueblo or at the Canon West substation?”
This article in the NY Times talks about a new Florida Solar Plant that is sited next to (and will work in tandem with) the largest fossil-fueled power plant in the country. A hybrid energy model that makes sense!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/business/05solar.html