To the Editor,

Thanks for informing us about Concentrated Solar Power (CSP). I agree with the NREL scientist who describes it as “…a very promising technology.” What the article really teaches is how we focus on the costs associated with anything new and tend to minimize the costs we pay to keep things the same.

The article points out the disadvantages of CSP, such as the need for new transmission lines. However, if we actually tried to meet future demand for power with coal-burning power plants (Heaven help us!), we would need to spend billions of dollars expanding our rail system to haul coal from where it is mined to where it is burned. These billions should be contrasted to the millions needed to expand our transmission line system which would be needed to bring clean energy from the desert to the cities.

Likewise, the acreage needed for solar collectors seems small in comparison to the land ravaged by coal mining. Mirrors in the desert, as opposed to mountain-top removal in the East and strip mines in the West, seems like a winning trade-off to me.

When the energy executives, such as Lewandowski, choose coal over CSP they claim it is on account of cost. What they are actually referring to is their costs. They conveniently overlook the cost that society bears from toxic smokestack emissions (e.g. mercury). Or the cost to the families of killed or disabled coal miners.

Certainly there’s a cost to CSP and any other form of energy generation. But the cost of sticking with coal is too much to endure.