NewEnergyNews: Fire at First Solar’s Solar Ranch One; Was it negligence?

NewEnergyNews

Gleanings from the web and the world, condensed for convenience, illustrated for enlightenment, arranged for impact...

YESTERDAY

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW TO OPEN UP NEW ENERGY ON WESTERN PUBLIC LAND
  • QUICK NEWS, February 28: SAVING NEW ENERGY IN THE EU; SIEMENS WIND TO MID-AMERICA FOR MIDAMERICAN; A NEW GENERATION OF PV MANUFACTURING
  • -------------------

    GET THE DAILY HEADLINES EMAIL: CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS OR SEND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    THE DAY BEFORE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: HOW IBM WOULD SPREAD THE WORD ON THE EFFICIENCY
  • QUICK NEWS, February 27: PRES WANTS PERMANENT PTC; FEDS BACK SUN R&D; THE DONALD (TRUMP) VS. OCEAN WIND
  • THE DAY BEFORE THE DAY BEFORE

  • SUNDAY WORLD HEADLINE- MORE THAN A THIRD OF GERMANY’S POWER BY 2020
  • SUNDAY WORLD HEADLINE- IRELAND AND CHINA PARTNER ON WIND FOR CHILE
  • SUNDAY WORLD HEADLINE- CHINA MOVES ON SOLAR PRICE
  • SUNDAY WORLD HEADLINE- JAPAN BUYS MEXICAN WIND
  • THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • Saturday Video: Time To Blot Out The Sun
  • Saturday Video: The Hand Of Man
  • Saturday Video: Trust
  • AND THE DAY BEFORE THAT

  • TTTA Friday- COMING SOON TO NEW ENERGY
  • TTTA Friday-LEGO BUILDING OFFSHORE WIND
  • TTTA Friday-NO-ELECTRIC-BILL HOMES
  • TTTA Friday- INSTALLING SMART METERS SAVES
  • THE LAST DAY UP HERE

  • TODAY’S STUDY: BRINGING ENERGY EFFICIENCY HOME
  • QUICK NEWS, February 23: NEW ENERGY COULD CONSOLIDATE; MONEY FOR NEW ENERGY, THE OUTLOOK; GERMANY SPEEDS F-I-T CUT
  • --------------------------

    --------------------------

    Anne B. Butterfield of Daily Camera and Huffington Post, is a biweekly contributor to NewEnergyNews

  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • Anne Butterfield (Daily Camera via New EnergyNews)

    It's been an explosive week for women's reproductive health with two events reaching new depths of outrageousness and a third prompting pundits to call on a silent voting bloc to defend its practices on contraception.

    The biggest story of the week was the Susan G. Komen Foundation stripping Planned Parenthood of its grants for breast cancer screening on the stated reason of Planned Parenthood undergoing a Congressional investigation. Komen's new vice president, Karen Handel, is a known conservative political force who swore opposition to Planned Parenthood for its 3 percent of services going to abortion.

    Yet, before week's end we who were outraged at Komen and vocal about it saw a reversal of the decision. Komen announced that their new policy will sanction only those facing "criminal and conclusive investigations."

    If only Republicans advocating for smaller government would heed such pared down parameters. In five state houses Republicans have passed laws that should make critics of Obamacare blush: requirements for vaginal-probe sonograms on women on the day ahead of abortions. This is rationalized as an informed consent measure, though I for one have not seen this degree of intrusion before for my two lung surgeries, and a call to an abortion counselor (asking to be unnamed) revealed that the vast majority of abortions have no medical need of a vaginal ultrasound (as topical ultrasounds are routine). So this measure smacks of the long arm of the law reaching into a woman's most private place to deliver ideology, with the doctor also being used against medical tradition and practice. American women, ask: whose uterus do these small government folks think it is -- the woman's or the state's?

    Since this drama has reached Kafkaesque absurdity, state senator Janet Howell of Virginia attached a protest amendment to a sonogram bill moving through her state house, a measure requiring men also to undergo a bodily probe ahead of getting erectile dysfunction medication. Her amendment lost by an impressively small margin with 13 male senators in support.

    All's fair in love and war, so social conservatives are also feeling the pain, due to the Obama Administration's Department of Health and Human Services having stated that Catholic institutions serving and employing the public must adhere equally to rules of the Affordable Care Act granting women equal access to birth control with no co-pays.

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had asked for a conscience clause, complaining that they cannot be made to pay for birth control. Meanwhile 98 percent of sexually active Catholics are said by the Guttmacher Institute to use birth control, meaning that the laity and the clergy of the church have radically opposing views of how to populate a family and maintain women's health.

    Catholic leaders doth protest too much in squawking on behalf of their religious freedom, suggests Jon O'Brien of Catholics for Choice -- whose stand is that the conscience of women rules. The church has failed to convince Catholics in the pews, so the clergy should own that failure rather than attempt to control distribution channels that impute extra costs to insured women who are often not even Catholic.

    On the politics, Chris Matthews on "Hardball," said that Catholics like him are swing voters and Obama has blown his chance with them. However Jon O'Brien says his group and its allies "expended a huge amount of resources mobilizing the public on this pivotal issue" of no co-pay birth control. And with Joan Walsh of Salon advising fellow Catholics to "preach what they practice" and defend the president, we shall see if Catholics defend their widespread practices or remain hiding in the shadows.

    Crises are times for taking action when comfortable practices can no longer be taken for granted. Planned Parenthood was gifted with nearly a million dollars in 24 hours of the Komen news, and also won a reversal -- good. More importantly we all need to see that protecting women's health where it intersects with reproductive freedom (not to mention a sound doctor-patient relationship) is no longer a spectator sport. We need to be activists, because as the right wing dreams of personhood amendments, flirts with banning birth control, and legislates body probes, we see that the American Taliban wears a prim sweater vest and expensive suits, with hopes to attract million-dollar super PAC's.

    -------------------

    Anne's previous NewEnergyNews columns:

  • Taken for granted no more (February 5, 2012)
  • The Republican clown car circus (January 6, 2012)
  • Twenty-Somethings of Colorado With Skin in the Game (November 22, 2011)
  • Occupy, Xcel, and the Mother of All Cliffs (October 31, 2011)
  • Boulder Can Own Its Power With Distributed Generation (June 7, 2011)
  • The Plunging Cost of Renewables and Boulder's Energy Future (April 19, 2011)
  • Paddling Down the River Denial (January 12, 2011)
  • The Fox (News) That Jumped the Shark (December 16, 2010)
  • Click here for an archive of Butterfield columns

    -------------------

    Some details about NewEnergyNews and the man behind the curtain: Herman K. Trabish, La Crescenta, CA., Doctor with my hands, Author with my head, Student of New Energy with my heart

    email: herman@NewEnergyNews.net

    -------------------

    Your intrepid reporter

    -------------------

      A tip of the NewEnergyNews cap to Phillip Garcia for crucial assistance in the design implementation of this site. Thanks, Phillip.

    -------------------

    Pay a visit to the HARRY BOYKOFF page at Basketball Reference, sponsored by NewEnergyNews and Oil In Their Blood.

  • ---------------
  • Wednesday, August 31, 2011

    Fire at First Solar’s Solar Ranch One; Was it negligence?

    Fire at First Solar’s Solar Ranch One; Was it negligence? And will attacks from locals drive First Solar to negotiate before major investors scatter?
    Herman K. Trabish, July 7, 2011 (Greentech Media)

    In response to a fire at First Solar's proposed 230-megawatt photovoltaic (PV) Solar Ranch One site, where construction on the world's biggest PV power plant was supposed to begin July 5, the developer is about to see more hostility from the community of Fairmont, its Antelope Valley neighbor.

    Fairmont Town Council Secretary David Jefferies, also an attorney, called the July 2 fire "negligence" and possible "reckless disregard" by First Solar (FSLR: NASDAQ). The fire burned over 70 acres before a 90-minute response from County firefighters suppressed it. LA County Fire Department Battalion Chief Clifford Meridth said it was the “accidental” result of a truck driving across the property.

    "If you drive a vehicle with a hot engine through three-foot-tall, bone-dry grass, you're either ignorant or negligent," Jefferies insisted. “The company claims it wants to be a good neighbor,” Jefferies said, "but good neighbors don't start fires, especially at this time of the year.”

    Jefferies also raised questions about possible First Solar operational safety violations, including failing to have fire suppression equipment on site, failing to have water trucks on site and failing to have a fire safety officer present. He claimed First Solar could be held responsible for fire-fighting costs. Fairmont's apparent intention to pursue legal remedies is an indication of the hostility between the community and the company.

    “First Solar is investigating the incident and has spoken to local fire officials,” said company spokesman Alan Bernheimer. He pointed out that it was officially ruled accidental, but added that First Solar “will ensure that if any neighbors suffered damages from the fire, they will be fairly compensated.”

    click to enlarge

    Bernheimer confirmed the cause of the fire. “The truck belonged to a technical consulting firm doing survey work on the project for upcoming site soils testing,” he reported. When construction starts later this month, “First Solar will have a fire safety plan in place,” Bernheimer promised. “Active First Solar construction sites always have safety personnel present.”

    When First Solar set out to develop Solar Ranch One in 2008, it was directed to the nearby Antelope Acres Town Council. Following over 100 stakeholder meetings, the company conformed to all federal, state and local guidelines in obtaining the project’s permit. It also paid $140,000 in financial considerations to Antelope Acres, which is roughly 12 miles from the project site.

    Fairmont, an agricultural community founded in the nineteenth century that is literally across the street from Solar Ranch One, constituted a Town Council in November 2010, after FSLR’s preparations were complete. Fairmont’s subsequent attempts to get the developer to recognize it and negotiate considerations went unanswered.
    Jefferies said Fairmont is prepared to take further legal action. It may seek an injunction to delay construction. “We are not against renewable energy,” he insisted, but “we have five attorneys with hundreds of years of [accumulated] legal experience in our group,” Jeffries said, and “First Solar is unreasonably threatening our way of life. 'Unreasonably' is the important word."

    Fairmont’s people are adamant about on-the-ground matters, including fences that will surround the installation, desert recreation area access, dust coming off the cleared and leveled land, and wildlife that may be displaced to nearby yards.

    They are even more concerned with how much water Solar Ranch One operations will require, who will administer desert lands purchased to mitigate the project’s impacts, who will get the jobs at Solar Ranch One, and what public benefits First Solar will offer the community. Water concerns might be overblown -- First Solar does not wash the panels, according to the firm.

    click to enlarge

    First Solar said its cadmium telluride (CdTe) PV project will use no more water on the 4,000-acre site than would be used by 12 houses. Fences will be set back to limit aesthetic objections and placed off the ground to accommodate wildlife. Dust will be kept in check during construction by water and solvents and during operation by re-vegetation. There will be recreational access to the site. Three hundred construction and 20 permanent jobs will go to locals -- if Fairmont does not block Solar Ranch One.

    “We will continue to meet with the parties concerned to reach a mutually acceptable resolution,” Bernheimer promised.

    First Solar Development Director Jack Pigott said at a June 27 Fairmont Town Council meeting that construction would begin July 5. It did not. If work on the project does not get significantly started by September 30, it stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal financial provisions, including a $680 million DOE loan guarantee awarded just last week.

    And there is evidence of another potentially serious problem for First Solar. Investors in the solar energy industry’s premier stock seem jumpy. Two separate sources reported that as many as 10 major financial institutions have been making inquiries locally about the project’s impeded progress. Emails obtained by Greentech Media show that international banking giant Credit Suisse as well as Greenlight Capital and Maxim Group are among them.

    First Solar’s Bernheimer declined to comment on this.

    Fairmont only wants, Jefferies said, for First Solar “to do the best job they are capable of doing.” But, he went on, “the fire is symptomatic of their attitude.”
    Fairmont’s people, Jefferies said, "are aware that we need to free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. We are aware that U.S. nuclear capacity will likely not expand. We are aware there are serious questions about coal. And we are aware that the Western Antelope Valley is the place for solar and clearly the place for wind.”
    But, Jefferies said of First Solar, “They think we don’t exist.”

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    << Home