Fresno-Yosemite International taps into solar power
[Via Gadling, thanks Trowa]
Filed under: Transportation
[Via Gadling, thanks Trowa]
Relevant Posts
- Brando's Solar Mini Clip Fan ruins your shot at picking up friends (42 days ago - 36 Comments)
- Oregon begins building first "solar highway" project (20 days ago - 92 Comments)
- Nihon windowpanes feature built-in photovoltaic cells (45 days ago - 32 Comments)
- Japanese firms to partially propel cargo ship via solar panels (9 days ago - 31 Comments)
- Tri-Solar LED Flashlight: because three panels are better than one (46 days ago - 43 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Josh @ Jul 18th 2008 2:53AM
Woo Fresno! Just an hour away from me and my closest major airport.
BowserUSC @ Jul 18th 2008 2:55AM
Guess they can't land planes at night.
Sebastian @ Jul 22nd 2008 9:12PM
You can think of the power grid as the canal system in Venice. Power generating devices fill power into the system like water. This is why we will never be able to rely on solar and wind enery alone, since those won't be able to keep the level of "power" in those canals at the same level.
So during times of no sunshine or low winds, the nuclear and coal power-plants kick in.
I don't really get the whole discussion here. Solar and wind energy is an add-on to the current system that is harnessing energy that is otherwise unused (namely heating the ground instead of being used to generate power).
And since we know that CO2 is a green-house gas, why is it so hard for even the nuclear supporters to accept this solution as an add-on? Why has it always ONE way? Is it so hard to accept other forms of generating energy?
It's the same thing with the Toyota Prius. That thing needs resources that are expensive, heavy and in the end it would be just as good if you buy a small car with a Diesel or Electric engine with some actual trunk space. But people gut so stuffed with the Prius' image that they can only accept hybrids as the ONE solution instead of maybe trying to think on a broader spectrum.
Always with the tunnel-vision.
blizz @ Jul 18th 2008 2:56AM
nice...i hope others do the same...maybe some turbines to collect from those passing planes too...and that energy creating dancefloor technology used in the walk ways
Anthony Peters @ Jul 18th 2008 3:10AM
yah its my airport too.. its nice.. it sucks the only starbucks is before security though.. and expressjet cuts its really awesome (and cheap) services to many places..
i noticed the panels getting installed (or preparing to get installed) less than a month ago when i last landed back home..
alex @ Jul 18th 2008 3:23AM
ive always said that a lot of airports in sunny regions were wasting tons of surface area by not using solar panels. glad to see someone else noticed too.
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 3:29AM
It's a waste if solar panels were introduced to these lands. Nuclear, the only solution for a green future.
andres @ Jul 18th 2008 3:41AM
sure, nuclear has plenty of power, BUT WHAT THE ***** do we do with the waste? honestly, if nobody wants to invest in proven alternative energies, then theyll probably be just as lazy in the disposal process. theres good technology involving nuclear power, but its all about who pays for it.
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 4:13AM
Maybe you haven't read up on new nuclear reactors that take nuclear waste, refine it into even more energy, leaving no waste. But hey, what the hell do I know, huh?
collegekid13 @ Jul 18th 2008 4:19AM
@ ishism
there is never no waste from nuclear. maybe less but always some. nuclear is a joke that works as a quick fix, but i for one, will never support a products with some many risks.
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 4:26AM
@ collegekid13. Don't let old fears deter you from the future efficient energy.
alex @ Jul 18th 2008 4:42AM
ishism-source. you claim "no waste" nuclear, i claim BS until you show me a reputable news source to back it up.
and since i wholeheartedly doubt your claims as is, utilizing otherwise wasted space to create zero-emission energy is not a "waste".
quiksilv3r @ Jul 18th 2008 4:43AM
You must be the most naive person in the world to believe that nuclear power isn't the way to go.
There are plenty of ways to discard of the waste, if that's your concern. You can use the waste to further extract power from it, and once that's depleted, all you do is glassify the waste, and dump it in the deep ocean where it can live its life emitting less radiation than that that already exists in the ocean.
Not to mention that nuclear plants emit less radioactive particles than coal burning plants do.
alex @ Jul 18th 2008 4:46AM
if its that easy, why are they still filling the salt caves with thousands of barrels of nuclear waste every year? they must not have gotten the memo
collegekid13 @ Jul 18th 2008 4:51AM
exactly!
Shaun @ Jul 18th 2008 5:08AM
@ alex
why would you want a news source to tell you that 95% of spent fuel can be reused? Just go to wiki there is no twisted tales from jurnos:
"The Nuclear Fuel Cycle begins when uranium is mined, enriched, and manufactured into nuclear fuel, which is delivered to a nuclear power plant. After usage in the power plant, the spent fuel is delivered to a reprocessing plant or to a final repository for geological disposition. In reprocessing 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant"
heres a nice picture of a diagram of how it works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_Fuel_Cycle.png
Technex @ Jul 18th 2008 7:56AM
ishism, WTF are you supported by the nuclear industry?
I couldn't think of anything worse than living near one. I would move to a different area.
Nuclear is bad stuff, and if it goes wrong the consequences ARE devastating,
I think solar/wind/wave power is the future, that's truly free energy with no consequences at all.
Shaun @ Jul 18th 2008 9:30AM
@ Technex
His using his head, he is one of the few that realise that wind and solar are not the anwser and never will be.
And living near a nuclear reactor would be bad but you forgot to mention how crap it would be to live near a wind farm.
And IF it goes wrong, what are the odds, there are hundreds of nuclear plants that are running and most that are pretty old these days and there has been no meltdown for the exception of Chernobyl. And now safety laws are stricter since the accident i really doubt a new or old nuclear plant is going to suffer the same fait.
There is no way any country can rely on solar, wind and wave because it is to unreliable! They simply dont work sometimes, and when that happens what do you do? Thats right, you turn to nuclear, coal etc which runs 24/7 which dosent depend on the weather.
omnicloud @ Jul 18th 2008 6:13PM
@Shaun:
No way? In BC, Canada, over 80% is powered by hydroelectricity. It's pretty reliable. If there's a power failure, it's mostly the fault of us or a wire being struck down.
Shaun @ Jul 18th 2008 3:25AM
Seven football fields and it can only produce 40% of their required power (and thats probably not even true).
Solar power really is the future! hahaha
I dont get how anyone believes that solar power is the future.
Word Up, North Korea! @ Jul 18th 2008 3:29AM
pays for itself after only 60 years!
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 3:33AM
People are stupid, and misinformed. That is why we don't move forward with nuclear power, which is way more efficient than solar or wind. Next thing you know we are going to start using food as energy. Oh wait..see what I mean.
MatthewJ @ Jul 18th 2008 9:33AM
Yes, because theres only room for ONE form of energy in the world...oh wait.
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 3:27AM
Maybe we can take all these land owners and fill their land with solar panels and wind mills too. T Boone Pickens would be so proud.
Forget wind and solar. When the hell are we gonna start moving forward with nuclear. Nuclear FTW.
Shaun @ Jul 18th 2008 3:41AM
Yes! Great idea...we will pay them off and put in expensive solar panels and wind farms that produce next to nothing and they will pay for themselves in hopefully 150 years.
But if we listen to Al Gore the planet will already be gone by then so whats the point?
haha
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 4:20AM
Ah yes, Mr. Nobel Prize. Maybe he can explain the global warming on Mars.
Maybe it's caused by man as well.
Vissich @ Jul 18th 2008 4:39AM
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." -- Common Sense, Sir Thomas Paine
Nuclear Power is far from a solution. The only reason why Nuclear power is purported as cheap and economical is that they do not take into account the long term costs of waste disposal, storage, and the decommissioning of old nuclear power plants. At the same time the process of enriching uranium, a main component of nuclear energy, produces CO2 emissions. In the U.S. much of the enrichment is done at the enrichment plant in Paducah, Kentucky. And is powered by two old 1,000 megawatt
coal-fired plants which produce a significant amount CO2. Because of this nuclear power produces 4-5 times as much CO2 as other forms of renewable energy.
Nuclear power also has the by product of long lived toxic waste. Now doesn't that sound like a problem? We would end up with the same problem as Carbon emissions where we would have to switch from Nuclear power to a more sustainable fuel. It is"iresponsible and morally wrong to commit future generations to the consequences of fission power on a massive scale."
Slow_tachyon @ Jul 18th 2008 10:30AM
one thing i love about folks who push nuclear power is they forget that it's a finite resource: there's only so much uranium in the world! sure, there's enough to get us through your lifetime, but what about your grandkids, or their's? it's that short-sighted, only worry about what's good for me and my generation attitude that's gotten us into this energy crunch problem in the first place. nuclear power is great for getting us through this period of time, but it's not a long term fix. we need to focus on solutions that we can rely on for hundreds to thousands of years to come. we need to develop good habits and attitudes about stewardship of this finite amount of planet we have, at least until we start looking to the stars in earnest. i admit that solar and wind power aren't the end-all solutions, but they're a good start, and a heck of a lot better than coal or other fossil fueled power sources; like someone said, there is NO one energy solution that's going to work, not in all areas. look beyond your gas tank and electric bill and think about how we're going to get things started on the right track for the generations to come. otherwise you're just a selfish consumer, not a problem solver. if i sound a little too much like a dreamer, an optimist, a tree hugger, so be it, but that's what i believe. i have kids, and i don't want them having to worry about whether they're going to be able to heat (or more likely cool) their home, drive some sort of vehicle, etc, when they're my age, 30-odd years from now, not to mention my decedents untold generations from now. thank you.
Tone @ Jul 18th 2008 3:29AM
That's right down the street from me.
Jeremy G @ Jul 18th 2008 3:35AM
What about when it is foggy till noon like it is most of the winter? Will they still get the expected return?
James D @ Jul 18th 2008 4:14AM
Wow, what's up with everyone harshing on solar power? It's 100% clean, and sunshine is abundant here in Fresno most of the year, with the notable exception of foggy winter mornings.
Building more nuclear power infrastructure will be a non-starter until that pesky 'INCREDIBLY HAZARDOUS WASTE' issue is resolved. Why insist upon *one* technology as a savior and not utilize all (preferably clean) sources available?
ishism @ Jul 18th 2008 4:22AM
Don't let Mr. Burns scare you kiddies.
collegekid13 @ Jul 18th 2008 4:21AM
wheres the fusion solar power plant from simcity when you need it. 50 000 mw if i rember correctly for a "few" simoleans
Vagrant @ Jul 18th 2008 6:19AM
Just wanted to let you all know that there is nothing wrong with all alternatives. Solar and wind aren't the only answers. Nuclear is alive and well in many countries and doing quite well. In fact polluting much less then those old coal burning factories.
We've got plenty of land in California and I'm all for throwing up a few nuclear facilities to help the power grid. (Which is truly the Achilles heel of the U.S.A.)
It's about time power sources increased to take care of regional areas. Remember, it's the United "States" of America. States need to ensure they're part of the solution and not the problem.
Oh yeah, wait...yes Fresno does get plenty of sunshine most of the year. There's plenty of empty land that cannot be used for dwellings, or businesses, so solar isn't going to hurt, but it's not the cure-all either.
Rontalvos @ Jul 18th 2008 6:28AM
The best part of FYI is that's not its actual name. Since it was built, and on all the FAA reference charts to this day it's Fresno Air Terminal.
FAT.
johnmc @ Jul 18th 2008 11:54AM
Untrue. The airport's name is Fresno Yosemite International (or FYI), the FAA designator is still FAT because they won't issue a new designator unless the airport is moved to a different location.
notYou @ Jul 18th 2008 7:27AM
"will eventually result in taxpayer savings of $11 million"
Does that mean we'll get a check? Probably not, instead we'll see this offset additional spending (for more solar to power the other 60% of the airport, right?) which means that "taxpayers" won't "save" anything, but rather the govt will just spend net more.
Economics is fun when you're the govt! "Look mommy, no hands!"
MRCUR @ Jul 18th 2008 8:32AM
It's nice to hear about FAT doing something cool. I was just there two months ago while visiting my cousins in Fresno. I'm surprised I didn't notice these getting installed...
albokay @ Jul 18th 2008 9:18AM
I live in Fresno and its so expensive to fly out of that airport that I have to drive to san fran fora flight and its still cheaper to leave there. We need southwest!!!
Ordeith @ Jul 18th 2008 8:08PM
It isn't the airlines...
It is the landing fees.
FAT charges more than double what SFO and LAX charge, and that is reflected in the cost of your ticket. You want it fixed? complain to city hall (though they seem to hace gone deaf to the citizens lately).
wescrock @ Jul 18th 2008 10:40AM
yeah... I live in Fresno, It is a FANTASTIC airport... quick, and easy... but pretty expensive.
johnmc @ Jul 18th 2008 11:57AM
Nothing like coming into work and seeing your workplace on Engadget (I work at the airport for a tech company, not for the city, who owns the airport). We're replacing all the computers that the airlines use for check-in, as well as putting in a new Flight Information Display System. I moved down here a few weeks ago from Sacramento and I love it here. The people are awesome.
TJ @ Jul 18th 2008 12:49PM
Why are people so negative about using solar panels to produce clean energy? The land would otherwise be unused, so why not make it work for you. Sure nuclear power is another great way to get us off of dependence on foreign oil, but we are still going to need other energy sources. It would not make sense to build a nuclear plant right off the end of the runway, the area is a clear zone where no building can be put, so why not use it efficiently? Just think if every airport (that sees sun a majority of the year) used solar in there empty lands, they would be a good chunk of energy.
And 40% at a airport is a lot, we are not talking about some residential house, it is 40% of the terminal, tower, hangers, runway lights, and what ever else that is there. In the Fresno Bee is said 4-mega watts, not 2 like it says here, I wonder which is correct? I am guessing it is 4. http://www.fresnobee.com/business/story/735047.html
thedesolate1 @ Jul 18th 2008 1:11PM
Im so excited about the future now that i see the country starting to develop more and more alternative energy resources.
Ordeith @ Jul 18th 2008 8:10PM
Ah, so you are part of the "upgrade the airport at great expense even though airlines are pulling out" project.
I think that airport has its priorities wromg.