It was standing room only at the City of Carlsbad sponsored open house and presentation regarding NRG’s proposed power plant, according to a Michael Burge story in the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Joe Garuba, the city’s municipal projects manager, told the audience that NRG’s new plant would not depend on ocean water to cool its generators, as the old one does. . . .“Because this plant is air-cooled, you can move it away from the coast,” Garuba said.
Of course, then it would be in someone else’s backyard. Our question (which we didn’t ask because NRG was not allowed to attend the meeting) is why does this power plant need to be in Carlsbad at all?
[Link: San Diego Union-Tribune]
RSS Feed-Posts
Based on a statement last night at the meeting from the City about a potential site in Escondido in their “industrial” zone, the new power plant apparently does not have to be in Carlsbad.
However, I brought away an entirely different take on things from the meeting, no surprise there.
NRG had a rep there who was sidelined. He says that the property the City has been suggesting (which borders Vista) will not work due to geographic factors and the airport. it’s in a valley and the smokestacks would have to be built super high. Plumes of hot gas would also create problems for the airplanes (turbulence) no matter how deep the building and smokestacks were buried for aesthetic reasons.
A citizen asked the panel how the plant would affect the airport and the City’s response was again that the FAA’s preliminary report was fairly positive.
Because several people asked me lately about the quarry as a potential site, I bounced this off the NRG rep. The quarry isn’t feasible because it’s in a valley, trapping a build-up of gases, and burying the buildings and smokestacks would be difficult if not impossible there and would not help this problem. Leaving them at their full height would greatly impact the residents who live on the ridge.
The big eye-opener to me was the very detailed presentation by the California Energy Commission (CEC) rep. She explained the process of site approval, in particular the role that citizens can play, or rather a reality check on how much impact the citizens will have on the decision. She explained the details of the upcoming workshops and hearings where citizen input will go into the public record.
The highest level of citizen involvement is called “intervener” which involves filing a petition and other steps so check it out beforehand on the CEC website.
There was a lot of disappointment last night in the crowd when Carlsbad residents realized how the CEC decision will be made.
That paled in comparison to the emotions of the folks from Oceanside and Vista toward the City of Carlsbad. I was surprised that there were so many more Oceansiders than Vistans, considering the City has been touting the site which borders Vista.
In a nutshell:
NRG tells us the Vista site would be unsafe but the City tells us it would be safe.
Public safety issues are a matter of trust and should be off-limits to spin and marketing efforts by all sides. Would you lie about crime statistics? We must find out who is telling the truth and hold the liars accountable!
Same situation with the CEC and the City as to how easy it will be for Carlsbad citizens to get it off the beach. Someone is trying to fool us.
There are places it cannot safely be built, regardless of NIMBY issues. Probably can’t put it in a valley. Or near an airport.
Maybe the Escondido site will work out. If so, I strongly encourage the citizens of Carlsbad to demand the entire coastal site as Open Space.
Hello Evan!
“Maybe the Escondido site will work out. If so, I strongly encourage the citizens of Carlsbad to demand the entire coastal site as Open Space.”–NIMBY?
Escondido already has the relatively new Palomar plant. Is there a proposed location for another?
Also, where is the “Quarry site”?
Thanks!
Don
I wasn’t promoting moving it to Escondido or to anyone else’s backyard: I was relaying what was announced at the meeting because it addresses the question posed by the editors : “why does this power plant need to be in Carlsbad at all?”
I heard no details provided about the Escondido site other than it is in a more industrial zone than any available in Carlsbad.
You can see the quarry area on the south side of the 78, east of the driving range, west of College. Again, I am not promoting this or any other site as an alternative site to the coast. I asked about it because several people had asked me so I was curious if it had been considered. (NRG’s rep said it was a poor site for the plant and the related story about the quarry, developers, and open space makes it look poorer still.)
If you trust what the CEC had to say last night, you believe that citizens may not have much say-so in the placement of the plant. If you trust the City, you believe your input can help sway the CEC.
Either way, we can show up at other meetings like the one in the quarry story on behalf of open space, before it is all gone.
Maybe it’s because I work at another power plant, but I think the new plant rendering looks pretty cool. A big landmark gives our town a little more cache.
We all use electricity and we should embrace the modern marvels that make it.
Besides, won’t Carlsbad get a lot of revenue from it?
P.S. Don’t forget they will be tearing down the old one.
Thanks for the response Evan.
Regis, Carlsbad does receive revenue from the existing plant, and would receive revenue from the new plant. The existing plant has something like 965 meg capacity, and the proposed new “peaker” plant has 540 megs proposed, along with future expansion plans. It is my understanding that the old plant would not be torn down until the future expansion of the proposed new plant is completed. In effect, the old plant would be with us for a number of years along with the new plant. Many people look at that as additional industrial use along the coast rather than replacement.
On the subject of electricity the Admisinstrative Law Judge for the California Public Utilities Commission said the proposed Sunrise Power Link “should be killed”. I agree. I think “we the people” would be much better served if the $1.7 billlion for SPL (transmission only, no generation) was used to distribute solar electric on rooftops, carports, and vacant land in San Diego County. This would provide local business/entreuprneurial/job creation, eliminate the need for a transmission line across pristine back country, improve reliability, and (perhaps) be less expensive. Wall street interests versus local main street interests.
Don
Pleas are being made to move it off the coast by appealing to our hunger for open space. We imagine a public park which everyone could enjoy. Developers and their friends in local govt see it has a new resort hotel for rich tourists. The city already has a plan for the land. If it wasn’t a resort or resort-based like the Ponto plan, wouldn’t they display it at these meetings?
Nobody (except maybe Regis) wants it on the coast. Moving to an unsafe alternative site isn’t the answer though. Farrah Douglas and Evan Rodgers pointed this out during the election debates.
It seems to me that NRG has been pretty up front with the Carlsbad community about their time line and very cooperative with the city. The current plant site has a substantial existing infrastructure in place that would have to be moved/duplicated elsewhere. Is this really the best use of severely limited tax dollars?
Just as we all have cell phones but no one wants a cell tower near them, we all use electricity; the plant has to be somewhere, and NRG is seeking to reduce its physical and carbon footprint by this new building. Unlike a mall or hotel, there is very little traffic generated by the plant so it’s impact on Carlsbad services, like police and fire protection, is minimal. Isn’t this an ideal business to keep in Carlsbad?
I think that building the plant is a very good idea. California no longer has the luxury of NIMBY. The state continues to increase the use of power and slows the permitting of new plants.
I am sure we do not want the lights out in Carlsbad?
The smokestacks on the proposed plant are TOO SHORT.
480 TONS of toxic exhaust annually are going to be released right on top of us. New stacks must be as tall al the existing stack to send the exhaust higher into the prevailing winds.
Comments on this entry are closed.