Since 2002, GWF Energy LLC has operated the Tracy Peaker Plant on the western fringe of Tracy. We supported it when it opened, and we support it now as its owners seek to upgrade the facility to produce more power more efficiently.
To recall why it originally earned our approval, take a step into the Not Too Way Back Machine.
In 2000 and 2001, electricity was a hard thing to come by in California. The shenanigans of Enron energy traders and a lack of new power plants led to rolling blackouts, outraging the public and helping cost Gov. Gray Davis his job.
The Tracy plant was designed to fire up when needed, zapping up to 169 megawatts — enough to power more than 125,000 homes — into the grid when demand for electricity was high. It made sense at the time, even if more than a few people didn’t want a power plant for a neighbor.
What’s going on now makes sense, too.
GWF Energy wants to take the fossil fuel-burning plant to full-time status, up its peak operating capacity to 314 megawatts and reduce its relative impact on the environment.
Though it will run for more hours and emit more total pollutants, the revamped power plant will be much cleaner per hour run than it is now, a better energy bang for the ecological buck.
The fact is, the future of California needs more power production, and since we’re not ready for an all-out switch to renewable energy, fossil fuel-fired plants will be a part of that future. Making these facilities as efficient and productive as possible is simply sound energy policy. (Building more nuclear facilities would be too, but that’s another discussion.)
The peaker plant’s new incarnation will also be a boon for the local economy. Company officials say 17 full-time workers will be hired to staff the new plant — a welcome prospect even if the place isn’t fully operational for a few years.
In fact, it’s hard to find more than a handful of objectors to this proposal.
One of them, Tracy Hills, is concerned about its proposed development’s view of 30 extra feet of exhaust stacks. GWF Vice President Doug Wheeler says his company’s trying to find a solution to that worry.
The other is the Tuso family, local landowners who say the facility already degrades their quality of life.
We sympathize with the Tusos, but the reality stacks up against them.
The plant is already there, and GWF owns the place. Plus, the facility counts as neighbors the Owens-Brockway glass manufacturing plant and the Nutting-Rice warehouse, with the biomass power plant about a half-mile to the northwest. It’s an area for industry, and an improved power plant fits in nicely.
The company has also fit well with our community. GWF has bought buses for Tracy Unified School District, runs a lawn mower replacement program and is working with city staff to get a solar farm on 200 acres of land off Schulte Road. And when it comes to offsetting pollution, GWF has agreed with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District to be cleaner than regulations require.
The final step between GWF and firing up its revamped plant in 2013, according to Wheeler, is for the California Energy Commission to give its approval.
We hope that step is taken soon.
You might ask them... and electric cars get energy from?
I guess if you can plug your EV in at work then it might cost you less, until your boss catches you and asks you to pay the difference on his/her bill.
But for commuting to the Bay Area the Neon is still the best deal out there.
Not that is doesn't help by driving hybrids etc., but the amount is actually miniscule. The problem as I stated before is INDUSTRY. Coal burnt for power is #1 by FAR.
Don't be silly. The proximity of a park near there is a moot point. First of all, because there is no current park planned there.
Continuing...
1. Did you miss the part about the HEIGHT of the Peaker Plant's towers?
2. Did you miss the part about the Peaker Plant's LOWER output during the time period which your sentiments were related to? And the efficiency improvements?
3. Haven't you heard the people are currently playing tournament ball at a park near cow-pattys that produces more hydrogens than you are even aware of?
May I encourage you to please get your facts straight before spewing more sentiments.
The Tracy Press forgot to mention that the water tower is already taller than any of those three factories that ARE already there.
Case closed.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Sure is a lot of data out thair fer people who care ta educate themselves instead of parrotin somthin that someone else might have said in error.
Take a look an decide fer yerself but it seems ta me that th SUV’s aren’t quite as bad as some people think. Course ya gotta spend some time lookin at th data an be unbiased enough ta look at all of it before reaching a conclusion.
One thing I don’t get is th ratio between “Carbon Footprint” an MPG. Seems ta me th more gas ya burn ta get ta whair yer goin would give ya a higher carbon footprint than a vehicle that got better MPG rateins. Thought th idea was to reduce th carbon footprint by makin cars that had better MPG rateins.
The SUVs named most polluting by the EPA are: the Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet C1500 Avalanche, Chevrolet C1500 Suburban, Chevrolet C1500 Tahoe, Chevrolet K1500 Avalanche, Chevrolet K1500 Suburban, Chevrolet K1500 Tahoe, GMC C1500 Yukon, GMC K1500 Yukon, GMC K1500 Yukon Denali, Toyota Land Cruiser, and Toyota Sequoia.
And this is where our kids were going to play, with the blessing of the City Council and Tracy Press? The plant is "already there" because the Tracy City Council and the Tracy press couldn't muster the guts to oppose it a few years back.
It will emit more total pollutants? Is that bad for our lungs? Is it worth 17 jobs?
Looks like Redbridge, Ellis and Tracy Hills will be in the category outlined by the Record below:
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090801/A_NEWS/908010319