Send a Message
to Paul Lindsey

Comments

513

Joined

Aug 6, 2009

Paul Lindsey's Favorites

Paul Lindsey Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Las Cruces Sun-News

I Like this new commenting system ! Opinions?

http://www.lcsun-n ews.com/ci_1838453 7  (Jul 2, 2011 | post #36)

Las Cruces Sun-News

I Like this new commenting system ! Opinions?

I think that it's going to be great. Just making sure my fb account is set up properly before using it. I'd been advocating for switching to Disqus, which is what the Santa Fe NM'ican uses, along with implementing their posting rules. I think using fb fixes the anonymous poster/troll problem, and let's fb police the fake name people, instead of the LCSN. I'm not going to miss PlacitasRoy or Al Reine at all.  (Jul 1, 2011 | post #10)

Las Cruces Sun-News

Flood control project riles neighbors

Stupid Topix system Anyway, I pulled up the WebSoil system from nrcs.usda.gov and loaded the results to my mediafire page listed above. This explains why my PE friend said that french drains were probably required to get the pond water to percolate. Got to get through the BP (because of the caliza component) to the Bm (Bluepoint loamy sand). In forming the inner pond, the City may have inadvertently or purposefully scraped down to the Bm soil.  (Jun 29, 2011 | post #58)

Las Cruces Sun-News

Flood control project riles neighbors

Funny that you say, "experience in the abstract", as if I only did calculations in an office cubicle and never got my boots dirty. Wrong-O, Mr. Consultant. I was in your area late this afternoon, so I looked. Walked down both infalls, the one at the NW bulge of Cedardale Lp and the 650' long underground culvert from Jasmine near Rosedale, and took grainy photos with my cell phone. Compared to the aerial photo on the assessor's parcel map, it appears that the CLC built up the berm closer to the homes. Almost as though they were protecting the rest of the parcel to the north and northwest from flooding. What did the City say at the meeting? Looks like there is plenty of grade to send the water further away from the homes, maybe even too much, causing erosion unless they built a concrete-lined culvert to carry the flow. Maybe they're also looking at the natural water table in the valley. With the ponding area above the valley floor, any standing water should seep into the ground faster, rather than effectively creating a Burn Lake situation where the water level rises and falls with the water table. Have you ever talked to vector control about the standing water? Of course, unless someone took water samples and looked for larvae, the mosquitos may not have ever come from there. I don't know what kind of mosquitos we have here, but a very quick google search revealed that most can fly 1-3 miles to feed, and the nearest pecan orchard (flood irrigation) is less than 1/2 mi due west. About the nuclear experience, I operated, supervised and then finally inspected both the material condition and training programs on the Navy's largest nuclear propulsion plants. Plus I was the anti-submarine warfare officer on an old (long ago decommissioned) destroyer, so I was nuclear weapons certified. So I know all about safety, both in terms of personnel and equipment.  (Jun 28, 2011 | post #51)

Las Cruces Sun-News

Flood control project riles neighbors

2nd para: should be "route the water 550' NW", not NE.  (Jun 28, 2011 | post #34)

Las Cruces Sun-News

Flood control project riles neighbors

What did you think that area was when you moved in? An environmental study area? Your own personal riparian viewshed? Do the residents along the southern stretch of Cedardale Lp complain when the farmer(s) directly to the west till the soil, spread fertilizer and spray pesticide? I doubt it, although they certainly have a complaint if the farmers start excavating the escarpment in order to enlarge the planting area. I do have experience with drainage requirements as a property owner doing a lot split (akla a subdivision, even if it was only 3 lots), a concerned citizen trying to fix a community problem (the western end of Berry Patch Ln), and as an engineer. Let's suppose that the City can route the water from the eastern infall about 550' NE and put the center of the holding pond there. Then route the water from the infall where Cedardale Lp makes the corner hs to be routed north 500'. The City Engineer should be able to calculate exactly how much water is going to enter the ponding area from each location during the nominal 100-yr storm, based on the impervious cover feeding those inlets. Not only that, the volume of water in cubic ft per second vs. storm time must be calculated. Since there is no pond outlet, the pond must be sized to hold everything. Then, based on whether these supposed culverts are concrete, rock-lined or simple dirt ditches, the size and cross-section is determined. Based on the grades and elevations, the amount of dirt and locations to both remove it and put it down (aka berms) are determined. Finally, the project cost is calculated and everyone will see what the city budget can handle. Some people in southern NM and El Paso poo-poo drainage planning because the average rainfall is not much, but those aren't the rules. The rules say that the 100-yr storm is the standard. The CLC is required to protect the property owners downstream of the pond, even if that area is not within the city limits, and even if that means that during some storm conditions, you and your neighbors are going to get your own personal version of Burn Lake in your viewshed. If mosquitos are a problem, call vector control.  (Jun 28, 2011 | post #33)

Las Cruces Sun-News

Flood control project riles neighbors

Use the Dona Ana County Assesor's Online Parcel Map to look at this area. (use the search box for find parcel ID 3-06011) Since CLC owns this property as a flood control pond, they are required to maintain it in order to hold the runoff from the nominal "100 yr storm". The CLC residents whose property abuts the pond may like the natural landscape and view, but it is the runoff from the houses, sidewalks and streets that made this pond a requirement. If the CLC (or any developer who has ponding area on their property, such as an apartment complex) does not maintain the ponding area and the resulting overflow damages the properties downstream of the pond, then the CLC is liable. The city can fence & gate the property to keep out drag racers and ATV's. The grading of the pond must be done in such a way that inflows do not erode the escarpment, the water does not backup into the inlet culvert at the SE corner, and the inflows do not cause the pond to silt up faster. The grading must also be deep enough so that the CLC doesn't have to have a crew out there every year to redo the job. I agree with the poster who said that home buyers whose property backs up to the escarpment above the pond should have done due diligence. It reminds me of the people who buy homes under the landing and takeoff path of an existing airport because the homes were cheap (duh), and then sue the city & airport authority to get noise abatement retrofits and/or airport takeoff and landing restrictions implemented.  (Jun 28, 2011 | post #22)

Las Cruces Sun-News

Fracking comes up clean

Then there's the other Robert F ... Kennedy Jr., who told the Colo oil & Gas Assoc that wind and solar plants are gas plants, letting teh dirty little secret out that wind and solar require backup from conventional power sources. http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=qcm1g mPL50s  (Jun 26, 2011 | post #93)

Las Cruces Sun-News

PRC approves proposed $84M power plant

Thank you for the link to that report. Have you read the TX PUC Nov 1990 report, "Electric Utility Response to the Winter Freeze of Dec 21 to Dec 23, 1989"? The TX PUC may have put it online, but if they haven't I can email it to you. Just drop me a private msg. It's 3.59 MB.  (Jun 25, 2011 | post #24)

Las Cruces Sun-News

PRC approves proposed $84M power plant

http://www.kvia.co m/news/26755809/de tail.html  (Jun 24, 2011 | post #20)

Las Cruces Sun-News

PRC approves proposed $84M power plant

The LMS100 is much better than the OCGT's of old, although I'm sure that the efficiency takes huge hit if the turbine is run at partial load. Per GE's press release, the simple (or open) cycle efficiency is 46%, and it can be mated to an HRSG: http://site.ge-ene rgy.com/about/pres s/en/2003_press/12 0903h.htm I don't think that the steam turbine from a high pressure boiler system could be reused for a CCGT, because it's designed for higher pressure steam than what will be generated by the HRSG on the back-end of a gas turbine. Maybe duct-firing would raise the steam pressure high enough. I agree that a OCGT or a CCGT still generates a lot of pollution, even if you disregard the CO2. Here's a link to a compnay that makes state-of-the-art pollution controls for NG-fired systems, called their EMx system: http://emerachem.c om/application/gas -turbine/ there is a book about the trials and tribulations of its development, "A funny thing happened on the way to energy independence... " http://www.energyl aughs.com/ The problems with staying with all NG-fired power plants, whether as gas turbines or boilers, is that it still leaves the utility exposed to NG price swings. Yes, right now, NG is cheap and NG proponents are pushing that for all its worth. But that could all change if fracking becomes heavily controlled or even outlawed.  (Jun 24, 2011 | post #18)

Las Cruces Sun-News

PRC approves proposed $84M power plant

PR, do you realize that the link you cited and the majority of your post comes from a stock-tout newsletter. Hardly an unbiased source of info. Then you commit a GCE (Gross Conceptual Error) by stating that the rated energy-generating capacity of a group of solar PV systems means that it actually puts out that much powerIn Germany, the capacity factor of roof-mounted and fixed (non-tracking) solar PV panels is 10%, because of the latitude and weather. So 2,800 MW of rated capacity is the equivalent of a 280MW power plant running 100% of the time. At what cost? Using the 2010 German module prices of $5/W times 2,800 MW, that's $14 BILLION. At $84 Million per 87 MW, EPE could build 166 LMS100 power plants. In the great scheme of things and looking at the power generation system as a whole, building modern open-cycle gas turbines makes more sense that continuing to operate steam-cycle power plants. Why do you think the US Navy shifted from boilers to gas turbines on frigates, destroyers and cruisers, even decommissioning nuclear cruisers that where in excellent condition? (the USS TEXAS CGN-39 was only 16 yrs old.) It's because the manpower, maintenance and start-up time of a gas-turbine-powere d ship is so much less than one with a steam boiler. The real answer would be for EPE to build more combined-cycle gas turbine units and replace all the steam units, since small modular reactors aren't available yet and the currently available reactor designs are too large for our market. However, CCGT's still leave EPE vulnerable to another cold snap, because of the cooling towers, and EPE needs the rapid response OCGT to firm the solar and wind power inputs. BTW, in your stock tout link, you left out a sentence in your cut-n-paste, "We'll still need nuclear baseload to be sure." Then there is James Hansen in Treehugger yesterday: http://www.treehug ger.com/files/2011 /06/treehugger-rad io-james-hansen-cl imate-change-and-i ntergenerational-j ustice.php?page=2 And this from the Breakthough Institute: http://thebreakthr ough.org/blog/2011 /03/doing_the_math _comparing_germa.s html  (Jun 24, 2011 | post #15)

Q & A with Paul Lindsey

Headline:

Just the Facts, Ma'am

Hometown:

Las Cruces, NM

Neighborhood:

far-East Mesa