Hello again,

A little over a month ago, I posted an article here which asked some questions about the Metcalf Energy Center that I felt were being ignored. Specifically: if we grant that additional power is needed (and I see in some recent posts here that even that assumption is questionable), why does it have to be generated by the burning of fossil fuels? And why does it have to be generated at the Metcalf location?

One of the arguments that I have seen discussed here is that San Jose desperately needs to evaporate treated sewage water that it is presently dumping into the Bay. (We can question the wisdom of that, too, but let's accept it as sensible for the moment.) In the back of my mind, I remembered reading about a solar-powered steam turbine system many years ago. It has taken me some time to locate references, but here they are:

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/pages/powertower.htm
http://solstice.crest.org/renewables/SJ/solar-thermal/594.html

Seventeen years ago, this Department of Energy Sandia Labs demonstration plant was generating 10 megawatts of POLLUTION-FREE power on about a two-acre site (I haven't found the exact acreage). Yes, they are using a steam turbine. Improvements to the technology are being studied. Retrofitting and upgrading appears to be easy, but even the early 80's technology appears to be quite capable.

Sandia claims that "land use for power towers is about on par with that of conventional power-generating technologies using fossil fuels. I may be missing something -- my back-of-the-napkin calculations suggest that between 25 and 50 MW could be generated at the 14-acre Metcalf site, using a solar plant like the one described. That is less than 1/10th of the power generation proposed by Calpine. However, there would be NO SMOG.

At first glance, it would seem that solar plants would make much better neighbors than fossil-fuel plants. There is a LOT of open space well within the perimeters of San Jose. This city gets continual sunshine, eight months out of the year -- we receive almost as much sun as the deep desert, where the demo plant was built. Solar plants supply peak power when it is most needed, on hot, sunny days. Building a few solar plants, rather than a single gas plant, might be a viable option. Shouldn't the city consider this?

Silicon Valley's business endeavors are promoted as being relatively ecologically friendly. The high-technology capital of the world would have its reputation tarnished by accepting, indeed encouraging, the generation of pollution. A solar plant is more worthy of our reputation.

Another thought: A major premise for the Metcalf Energy Center's existence appears to be that the projected demand for power in the California market will TRIPLE in the next several years. Why? Must it? Is this due to the fact that we're expecting the population of California to triple? (Yikes!) Or is the existing population just expected to be making fewer energy-efficient choices, as the cost of deregulated power goes lower and lower?

Economists talk about something called externalized social costs. These are the costs of damage done by an industry that are not paid for by the industry, and thus are not reflected in the cost of the goods provided by the industry. But someone eventually must pay the externalized costs. It's just not the people who sell the goods, nor the people who buy them. Just how much will the property value losses be to the neighbors of Metcalf Energy Center? And how many extra trips to the doctor will Santa Teresa residents take for respiratory ailments? What will San Jose lose in residential property tax revenues? Will the loss exceed the tax benefit from Calpine? Factoring in these externalities, just what does "cheap power" cost?

Finally: take a look at any San Jose subdivision. You will see the same housing plan repeated, over and over. But sometimes the plan is facing north, other times south, still others east and west. There is no way that ALL of these houses can be optimally aligned to the sun, to accept the most heat in the winter months, and to be shaded in summer.

San Jose is still growing like mad. What if developers were required to take solar considerations into account in all new construction? I understand that the city of Davis has such an ordinance. I'm not talking about requiring photovoltaic panels or anything like that -- I'm talking about using double-pane glass, overhangs and deciduous shade trees on the south wall, and fewer windows on the north wall.

What might a little sun-sense do to the projected energy needs of this area? Would we still need the Metcalf Energy Center?

--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305