Tag Archives: Planning

Tonight: Planning Commission Agenda @ GLPC 2012-05-21

The Greater Lowndes Planning Commission (GLPC) meets tonight. Here’s the agenda.

The agenda was faxed by GLPC Chairman Bill Slaughter to Gretchen Quarterman for LAKE, at her request; GLPC itself still doesn’t have agendas online, ten months after SGRC stopped posting them.

There’s one rezoning case on the agenda, a county case:

2. REZ-2012-09 John A. Copeland
Property Location: Loch Laurel Road, Valdosta, Ga
Request to rezone ~5 acres from R-A (Residential Agriculture) and R-1 (Low-Density Residential) to C-C Crossroads Commercial)

According to the Lowndes County Tax Assessors database, James R Copeland and Elizabeth J. Copeland own two lots on Loch Laurel Road with Situs/Physical Address of 0 Loch Laurel Road, one of 1 acre and the other of 8.67 acres, and another one mostly surrounded by those two at 3248 Loch Laurel Road of 1.5 acres. It will be interesting to see how those plots add up to about 5 acres. Whatever GLPC recommends, final action is scheduled for the Lowndes County Commission at its 12 June Regular Session.

Continue reading →

2006 and 2011 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, Valdosta

What’s this AI everyone is talking about related to fair housing? Now you can see for yourself.

Copies of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, City of Valdosta, are now available for 2006 and December 2011 on the LAKE website. I retrieved both of them today from Document Central on the the City of Valdosta’s Document Central. It is my understanding that the 2006 version has been there for some time, and the 2011 version was put there today. The 2011 version is a draft that has not yet been approved by HUD.

I have not read either version of the document yet, so I don’t have much to say about it yet. The point is that you can read it yourself. I’ve also pulled all the 2011 maps into separate web pages to make them easier to work with. No doubt the Valdosta City Council and staff, as well as the community steering committee formed by Council James Wright would be interested in feedback. Or you can comment on this post.

-jsq

Saudi Arabia turns from oil to sun: $109 Billion Plan

When the world's biggest oil producer plans to shift to solar energy, maybe it's time for the rest of the world to realize there's money in solar energy.

Sarfaraz Khan wrote for Solar PV Investor 17 May 2012 Saudi Arabia, The Land of Plenty For Solar: Saudi Arabia's energy strategy plans to add 41GW to the national grid in 20 years through investments of $109B.

Ali Al Naimi, surprised the global solar stage with his grand announcement, “Saudi Arabia aspires to export as much solar energy in the future as it exports oil now.”

That was two years ago. This month Saudi Arabia held the fourth Saudi Solar Energy forum.

The summit turned out to be extremely successful, as by the end of the meeting, Saudi Arabia officially announced its ambitious solar energy strategy that plans to add 41GW to the national grid in 20 years through investments of $109B. The country currently produces just 3MW from solar. According to the plan, 25GW will be generated from solar thermal plants and 16GW from PV panels. The country aspires to generate a quarter of its total energy from the solar sector by 2032.

It seems the world's biggest oil exporter is planning for a future in which oil is much less important and the sun much more so.

And in that conference:

The companies that participated in the conference included First Solar (FSLR), Amonix, Areva Solar, Abengoa Solar, Novatec Solar, Siemens and Soitec Solar GmbH.

Not a U.S. company in that list. Of course, the U.S. doesn't need Saudi Arabia as a customer if we just get on with solar here at home. Georgia, for that matter, has two solar manufacturers Suniva of Norcross and MAGE SOLAR of Dublin) and more than 40 certified solar installers.

Where's our renewable energy plan?

-jsq

Google shows the way on offshore wind

Zachary Shahan wrote for CleanTechnica yesterday, Google-backed Offshore Wind Power Superhighway Moves Forward,

The Department of the Interior stated on Monday that there was “no overlapping competitive interest” for the areas where the $5-billion project would be constructed. This decision leads us to the next step in the process — environmental review of the Atlantic Wind Connection line.

The article notes that environmental review could take 18-24 months, with a projected power online date of end of 2017. Southern Company projects Vogtle Unit 3 online in 2016 and Unit 3 in 2017. And that’s before the cost overruns that have already started. I’m guessing Google will have its Atlantic wind project up and running before Southern Company has any new nukes online, if they’re ever online.

And remember, the Atlantic Wind Connection is privately funded:

Other than Google, companies funding the project include Good Energies and Japan’s Marubeni Corp.

The cost is about $5 billion for 6,000 MW of wind energy generation.

Meanwhile, Southern Company has already overrun its nuke cost estimate by almost $1 billion within a few weeks of NRC go-ahead. It won’t take long at that rate for the cost overruns to exceed $5 billion. That’s on top of the perhaps $8.3 billion base cost. That’s for two 1,100 MW reactors, for 2,200 MW total.

What if Southern Company and private investors quit wasting resources on nukes and funded a Georgia Bight Wind Connection instead? After all, Georgia’s offshore waters are part of the East coast wind energy basket.

-jsq

How Much Wind and Solar Capacity Would a Billion Dollars Buy?

Those cost overruns so far on the new nukes? How much solar and wind could that money buy?

John Hanger wrote on his Facts of the Day today, $913 Million Construction Overrun Hits Georgia New Nukes: How Much Gas, Wind, Solar Capacity Would That Buy?

Comparing the Vogtle initial $913 million cost overrun to the capital costs of gas, wind, and solar plants show just how big these cost overruns can be. The Vogtle $913 million cost overrun by itself could have paid for approximately 1,000 megawatts of natural gas generation; 450 megawatts of wind power; and 330 megawatts of solar power.

Don’t forget that’s just the first cost overruns on those nukes. When the current Plant Vogtle nukes were built, there were supposed to be four at a cost of $660 million; only two were built, at a cost of $8.87 billion. That’s a cost overrun of 1300%. How much solar and wind could $8 billion buy?

Moreover, gas, wind, and solar generation could be up and running in 3-years or less from the first day to the last day of development, as opposed to the 10 years or more needed to build a nuclear plant.

Austin Energy’s new 30 MW solar farm, for example, approved beginning of 2009, opened end of 2011, and cost less than originally projected.

Oh, and solar doesn’t leak radioactive tritium like Plant Hatch and won’t get shut down two days after an NRC clean bill of health like Plant Vogtle.

-jsq

 

Cost overruns already starting for Georgia Power’s new nukes

Remember how Georgia Power customers get to pay for cost overruns on the new nukes? Well, the overruns have already started.

JoAnn Merrigan wrote for WSAV 15 May 2012, Environmental Groups: Plant Vogtle Reactors Almost One Billion Over Budget,

A group of nine national environmental groups says that the two new nuclear reactors being built at Plant Vogtle (near Waynesboro in eastern Georgia) are over budget by up to $1 billion dollars. The opponents say Georgia Power’s share of the cost overruns is currently $400 million and that may cost ratepayers as well as taxpayers who are guranteeing loans in the billions of dollars.

The nine environmental groups, Friends of the Earth, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Citizens Allied for Safe Energy, Georgia Women’s Action for New Directions, NC WARN, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and Nuclear Watch South, are also suing:

Continue reading →

Who voted for Georgia Power’s nuke rate hike (CWIP)?

Who voted for that Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery Rider that appears on your Georgia Power bill, charging you for electricity you won't get from the new plant Vogtle nukes for years?

Project Vote Smart has lists of Yeas and Nays for that Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) charge, which was in 2009’s SB 31, "Energy Rate Increases to Finance Nuclear Power Plant Construction".

Compliments to all who voted Nay to this stealth tax that is slowing down deploying renewable energy in Georgia, delaying the solar and wind clear path to jobs and energy independence. Georgia Power customers can also vote against CWIP with their bill payments.

First let's look at our local delegation:

DistrictWhoPartyVoted
8Sen. Tim GoldenTurncoatYea
174Rep. Ellis BlackTurncoatYea
175Rep. Amy CarterTurncoatYea
176Rep. Jay ShawDemocraticYea

Every one of our local delegation voted for the CWIP rate hike. Here "Turncoat" as a party indicates they were Democrats at the time, but since got re-elected as a Democrat in 2010 and then became Republicans after the election. Democrat Jay Shaw did not run again. His son Jason Shaw ran as a Republican and won. Project Vote Smart is a bit confused by that, and by the party switching, so I've corrected those points in these lists.

Why do the Yeaers want to let Georgia Power charge its customers for electricity they won't get for years, if ever?

Also, notice every Democratic and one Republican co-sponsor of SB-31 is out of office.

Don Balfour (GA – R)
J.B. Powell (GA – D) (Out Of Office)
Chip Rogers (GA – R)
Mitchell W. 'Mitch' Seabaugh (GA – R) (Out Of Office)
Ed Tarver (GA – D) (Out Of Office)
Thorborn 'Ross' Tolleson Jr. (GA – R)

Hm, maybe voting for that nuke boondoggle wasn't good politics….

Here are the complete lists of votes on SB 31 for Senate and House. In the House list there's former Speaker Glenn Richardson not voting! And now he and former Governor Roy Barnes are suing Georgia Power about CWIP.

-jsq

Continue reading →

Powering North Carolina with wind, sun, and water

Here's some hard evidence of FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff's assertion back in 2009 that baseload is outdated, we don't need any new nukes or coal, because we can get all the new power we need from sun and wind. This study from North Carolina goes further: we don't need coal or nukes at all.

John Blackburn, Ph.D. wrote a report March 2010, Matching Utility Loads with Solar and Wind Power in North Carolina: Dealing with Intermittent Electricity Sources,

Takoma Park, Maryland, and Durham, North Carolina, March 4, 2010: Solar and wind power can supply the vast majority of North Carolina's electricity needs, according to a major report released today. Combined with generation from hydroelectric and other renewable sources, such as landfill gas, only six percent of electricity would have to be purchased from outside the system or produced at conventional plants.

Hourly Power Generation and Load for a sample day in July

"Even though the wind does not blow nor the sun shine all the time, careful management, readily available storage and other renewable sources, can produce nearly all the electricity North Carolinians consume," explained Dr. John Blackburn, the study's author. Dr. Blackburn is Professor Emeritus of Economics and former Chancellor at Duke University.

"Critics of renewable power point out that solar and wind sources are intermittent," Dr. Blackburn continued. "The truth is that solar and wind are complementary in North Carolina. Wind speeds are usually higher at night than in the daytime. They also blow faster in winter than summer. Solar generation, on the other hand, takes place in the daytime. Sunlight is only half as strong in winter as in summertime. Drawing wind power from different areas — the coast, mountains, the sounds or the ocean — reduces variations in generation. Using wind and solar in tandem is even more reliable. Together, they can generate three-fourths of the state's electricity. When hydroelectric and other renewable sources are added, the gap to be filled is surprisingly small. Only six percent of North Carolina's electricity would have to come from conventional power plants or from other systems."

Six percent is a small number. That means most coal plants could be shut down, and no nukes are needed.

Continue reading →

Cook County schools furloughing teachers

Cook county schools have a budget shortfall problem, and they think they can solve it only by furloughing teachers. Remind me again why we're wasting $1 billion a year on prisons, including private prisons for the profit of private prison shareholders and executives (like CCA CEO Damon Hininger's $3 million a year) and we're furloughing teachers instead?

Greg Gullberg wrote for WCTV 10 May 2012, Teachers in Cook County Face Furloughs,

The Cook County School System is facing a $472,352 deficit. Superintendent Lance Heard tells Eyewitness News reporter Greg Gullberg that the only way out may be to initiate system-wide furlough days and cutting jobs.

"We've done everything we can to maintain the level of education for the students that we've always had and we think we've been able to do that," said Superintendent Heard.

Nothing is set in stone yet, but 488 teachers, staff and administrators, may be facing furlough days next school year. Superintendent Heard hopes to limit them to three to five per employee.

"I would like to say also that when we do take furlough days, they are always none instructional days. The students do not miss any school," said Superintendent Heard.

Yet. Keep on in this direction and the students will be missing school. As it is, they just get less-prepared teachers, for less-effective teaching. But this is not Supt. Heard's fault.

Do we in Georgia want to prepare students for jail, or to succeed in life? Prisons cost we the taxpayers lots of money. Successful young people help pay for everything. Maybe we should choose successful young people, starting with education.

-jsq

FERC and energy demand response

Beyond a smart grid to mix and match the supply solar and wind to get rid of any need for new coal or nuclear plants, as FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff recommended three years ago, FERC also has plans to mix and match demand. Energy customers can volunteer to shut off their air conditioners or clothes dryers automatically if there’s not enough supply. This could facilitate adding solar power, by basically acknowledging that it may not always supply a fixed capacity.

Todd Griset wrote for law firm PretiFlaherty 23 April 2012, FERC seeks demand response standards,

Demand response, an innovative strategy to ensuring the integrity of electric grids, is growing in popularity, prompting federal regulators to consider standardizing how demand response performance is measured.

Managing an electric grid entails ensuring a constant balance between electric generation and customer demand for electricity. As customer demand rises, grid operators have traditionally called on more and more generating units. In most markets, grid operators dispatch the lowest-cost units first to keep overall costs down. As a result, generating units needed to meet peak demand tend to be more expensive than baseload generation. Many peaking units also emit more pollutants per unit of energy than baseload units.

In a demand response program, customers can volunteer to be available to reduce their load during times of peak demand. When done right, this reduction in customer demand can play much the same role as dispatching additional generation, but at a lower cost in dollars and environmental impacts. Energy efficiency resources can also play a similar role.

The U.S. Congress and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have both recognized that demand response can be a decentralized, crowd-sourced alternative to peaking power plants. Utilities and regional transmission organizations across the nation are implementing demand response programs.

Across the nation…. How about it, Georgia Power, and Georgia EMCs? How are your demand response programs coming?

-jsq