Los Angeles
CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
State help sought for plant closure
SEE HOW THIS STORY DEVELOPED
» 161 days ago: State help sought for plant closure «
162 days ago: Power plant parts burning city money
196 days ago: Power plant plan is losing its steam
204 days ago: Decision on Potrero power plant delayed
This story ranks Not ranked
Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO
(Map, News)
-
A state agency may be asked to allow the shutdown of the polluting Mirant Potrero Power Plant without having to replace its energy-producing capacity. Related Topics: SAN FRANCISCO
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday adopted a resolution asking the Public Utilities Commission to submit a proposal to the state for the shutdown. The action comes before the board’s July 15 vote on a project to build a less-polluting power plant.
City officials have said that the California Independent System Operator would only approve the power plant’s closure if they replace it with equal power generation. City officials are now saying that the ISO may be willing to allow the power plant’s closure.
Comments from Examiner Readers
1:51 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008 re: "State help sought for plant closure"
Report as inappropriate
12:47 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Power plant parts burning city money"
Report as inappropriate
9:50 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Power plant parts burning city money"
Report as inappropriate
8:30 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Power plant parts burning city money"
Report as inappropriate
2:21 PM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008
re: "Decision on Potrero power plant delayed"
Report as inappropriate
1:18 PM MST on Wed., May. 21, 2008
re: "Power plant plan is losing its steam"
Report as inappropriate
10:48 AM MST on Tue., May. 13, 2008
re: "Decision on Potrero power plant delayed"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
Youre info is incorrect, the existing peakers at Mirant currently run 200-250 hours a year. Once they are the only source of power in the area they will be required to run as much as the new peakers.
2 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
But then again I've learned that the new power plants would run for 18 to 30 more years at 3,000 to 4,000 hours per year and we know now we can shut down most of Mirant without the new power plants. Any part of Mirant that would need to be retrofit will be as clean as the new $273 million power plants but only run 200-250 hours per year for a handful of years. There's no easy solution, but building new fossil fuel burning power plants in our low income Southeast communities is definitely not the answer.
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
These plants ought to have been approved already, but Mayor McGovernor saw a hole in his green campaign platform. The pollution that would have come from these plants is much less than the existing plant, and nothing compared to car exhaust that this city chokes down. Retrofitting Mirant is a dirtier solution for our air and our water. The peaker plants would not sully the Bay, but the Mirant plant does and will continue to.
6 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
So, now we (the rate payers) are going to pay PG&E (who cannot do anything efficiently) $239,000,000 to get a bigger strangle hold on all of us. We are also going to pay Mirant to upgrade their 35 year old generators, and have no control of when they get shutdown. And to top it off we will still need to come up with an in-city generation plan in the next decade. When will the Mayor realize that the City Turbines are a green solution. - Oh by the way, the new generators pay for them selves in 18 years.
2 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
We need more of these peaker style plants which would only run when we need them. This would enable us to go after renewable resources and still have local reliable power on days when the "sun don't shine", or if there is an earthquake. Besides people point to the transbay cable as a solution, The cable is powered by a natural gas fired plant - that's ok I guess since it is not in potrero.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
We do not need more fossil fuel plants no matter how efficient they may be. We need more power plants like the one on my roof - I have solar panels that feed into the grid and nullify my use of electricity. If we took the same amount of money and spent it on solar panel incentives there would not be a need for peaker plants. The problem is that the plan to re-build the Portrero plan began 7 years ago when solar was not a feasible idea. Now solar is very viable but no one is brave enough to say "Whoa - maybe we better think about changing direction." If my house can be "off the grid" powerwise during the day, then having 25% of SF homes using solar could reduce residential demand 25% during the day. Take the peaker power plant money and rent the rooftop of Costco (or any big roof) and install a solar farm - Costco would get rental income and we get electricity. So many options are available! NO MORE FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS!
4 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Don't believe it. This is all about PG&E not wanting the City to control in-city generation. When push comes to shove, this Mayor sees his political future tied to big corporate support like PG&E.
6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree