Slashdot Log In
Freeze On US Solar Plant Applications Lifted
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jul 03, 2008 01:44 PM
from the it-would-have-melted-eventually dept.
from the it-would-have-melted-eventually dept.
necro81 writes "Barely a month ago, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management announced a freeze on applications for solar power plants on federally managed land, pending a two-year comprehensive environmental review. After much hue and cry from the public, industry, and other parts of government, BLM has today announced that it will lift the freeze, but continue to study the possible environmental effects. To date, no solar project has yet been approved on BLM land."
Related Stories
[+]
US Halts Applications For Solar Energy Projects 481 comments
Dekortage writes "The US Bureau of Land Management, overwhelmed by applications for large-scale solar energy plants, has declared a two-year freeze on applications for new projects until it completes an extensive environmental impact study. The study will produce 'a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process.' The freeze means that current applications will continue to be processed — plants producing enough electricity for 20 million average American homes — but no new applications will be accepted until the study is complete. Solar power companies are worried that this will harm the industry just as it is poised for explosive growth. Some note that gas and oil projects are booming in the southwestern states most favorable to solar development. Another threat looming over the solar industry is that federal tax credits must be renewed in Congress, else they will expire this year."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Frozen? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frozen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:5, Insightful)
nothing like the people that are against everything.
Doesn't matter how good a proposal is, there will always be downsides, and there will always be people that will use these downsides to block anything and everything just to show they have power.
If the 1800's would have been like that the world would look a whole lot different today.
There would be no railroads, probably no roads/cars and aircraft/airports and certainly no space travel.
Progress requires sacrifice, the tough bit is that lots of stuff got sacrificed to profits, not to progress and we're not facing the backlash of that.
The pendulum once disturbed never quite regains its balance.
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hippies with money don't care about the poor trying to get by with high heating oil/energy costs.
"Hippies with money" is an oxymoron. PETA isn't hippies, it's yuppies. Upwardly mobile professionals with too much money and not enough compassion.
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:5, Insightful)
But what exactly about them shows a "lack of compassion"? Because they'd ban animal testing? That's not a choice I'd agree with, but it has legitimate moral arguments.
How about assaulting people over their choice of clothing? Controlling something through fear... oh yeah, it's a terrorist organization. Wow... compassion what?
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Any PETA person would tell you that they're showing compassion for the dead animal who provided the fur. You can argue that there's something wrong with showing more compassion for animals than for people. But that's not evidence of "lack of compassion". Rather the opposite.
And before you launch into the usual ad hominem bullshit: I am not a member of PETA, I disagree with them on many points (especially about their harassing people who disagree with them), and I'm wearing leather shoes as I write this. It's just that disagreeing with somebody doesn't give you the right to turn off your brain when you're talking about them. I think I speak for most people when I say that demonizing people you disgree with is a tired concept, much abused by the mentally lazy.
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is necessary
This is necessary
Life
Feeds on life
Feeds on life
Feeds on life
Feeds on
PETA displays a lack of compassion for the realities of life for the average person that is guaranteed to alienate them. When you give someone a hard time for eating meat or wearing leather, things that mankind has probably been doing since long before anyone ever had the idea (misguided or no) that there might be some ethical reason not to do so, you're making their life harder for something that they have little control over - their upbringing. I'd say that shows a lack of compassion... their lack of understanding for your position in life.
Finally, I do think that the members of PETA are a bunch of idiots, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I can look in the mirror and see what shape my teeth are. I don't believe any of that dizzy-headed bullshit about humans being the only animals who kill for fun (my cat does it) or about being the only ones who make war (ants do it) or any of that. If you want to go with what the majority of animals in nature do you'll spawn and separate and maybe die. But odds aren't bad that you'll eat some other animal for lunch. You probably won't wear one, but only because you don't have the combination of clever hands and a big brain that will let you get the idea. Is it demonizing them to say that I think they're all fundamentally damaged at some deep emotional level?
I personally know someone who at one point in their life cried because they couldn't stand to kill a vegetable. ("I'm a level five vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.") They realized the absurdity of the situation and began eating meat again too, because the plant is alive, and the animal is alive, and they both taste good. We're not meant to subside on plants alone, our body simply isn't designed that way. Even if it was, to live naturally is not desirable. If it was you'd typically die at 35 of one of your many diseases. Er, not you personally... the general "you" :)
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Frozen? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you realize that you are reasoning emotionally, not analytically.
The target of your polemic are (a) hippies with (b) money who (c) care about rare birds and (d) don't care about poor people. Just because somebody demonstrating caring about rare birds doesn't mean he doesn't demonstrate caring about people in other circumstances. That's an assumption you are making for polemical purposes, so that you can brand anybody who disagrees with you on an issue as a hypocrite.
Also, the implication is that anybody who has anything to say should just STFU if you think there's an issue that's more important. It's a BS position, because there's always a more important issue you can scrounge up. If you want to have any credibility arguing this position, you'd better show that you've dedicated your life to assisting the poor.
You can't be a serious thinker about issues and be a single issue person. The world doesn't work that way. Sometimes it's time to stand up for the environment, and sometimes it's time to stand up for the downtrodden. And quite often doing one is doing the other.
If you knew anything about environmentalism other than what you've learned from right wing bullshitters, you'd know that environmental problems fall disproportionately on the poor. Who breaths the most pollution? The poor. Who suffers the most from climate change or short sighted, locally focused water management? The poor.
The middle class don't do so great either, under the rape the environment philosophy.
But if you're wealthy, you get the lion's share of the economic benefits of that philosophy. Using that money, can simply move away from problems. Move to the outer suburbs, and buy a vacation home in Vail. If you despoil your native country, you can always go to Costa Rica to stay at a marvelous eco-friendly resort.
It's not that I have anything against the wealthy in general. I've known quite a few of them, and a lot of them are forward looking, socially responsible problem solvers. But this argument that environmentalists ignore the poor is just ignorant. It's worse than ignorant. It's willfully ignorant.
You don't give a shit about the poor, you're just exploiting them to make a rhetorical point. No person sincerely interested in the poor takes the attitude that nobody can have any other priorities but the poor.
Parent
Government listening to the people?? (Score:4, Funny)
My god, what next!? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Yes, it's from ... Ghostbusters!
Re:Government listening to the people?? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It was government listening to the solar lobby
Pretty much. What's stopping the solar lobby from buying their own damn land and building whatever they want there (other than the obvious promise of cheap/free government land)?
Re:no i was wrong :( (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Continue Building! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Continue Building! (Score:5, Insightful)
Chance that a coal-fired power plant does significant harm to the environment: 100%
If we can displace some power sources that we KNOW have big negatives with some we're pretty sure won't, then yeah: let's build now and watch for any unexpected consequences as we go forward.
Parent
Don't review it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar power sounds great and is very trendy. Why evaluate the possible consequences for our actions when we can plow ahead blindly? Going ahead with energy policy without considering the environmental effects has worked well for us so far!
Besides, being in favor of solar power helps you score with hippie chicks.
Re:Don't review it! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not sure if you're aware, but hippie chicks are a pain in the ass. They don't shave their body hair, they're overly concerned with what direction they're facing when making out so they can "harness the natural energy of Gaia", and they think all technology pollutes their auras.
What you want is to score with a hot female electrical engineer, because there's usually a hellion lurking beneath the rose-rimmed glasses and the tight labcoat.
Parent
Re:Don't review it! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a second, are you the author of those electrical engineering romance paperbacks I've been reading?
Parent
Re:Don't review it! (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a second, are you the author of those electrical engineering romance paperbacks I've been reading?
Links please...
Parent
Re:Don't review it! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Don't review it! (Score:5, Funny)
hot female electrical engineer
you sir have clearly not been to the engineering building on a college campus. The hot female EE you speak of is a mythical creature, like bigfoot, or a unicorn.
Parent
Re:Don't review it! (Score:5, Funny)
The hot female EE you speak of is a mythical creature, like bigfoot, or a unicorn.
Oh, they exist, I've seen them with my own eyes. They've just been hunted to the edge of extinction.
Parent
Re:Don't review it! (Score:4, Insightful)
How dare they approve zero projects before the study is complete!
Parent
Solar plants are dangerous! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Solar plants are dangerous! (Score:5, Funny)
I can't believe you left out the biggest problem of all: what to do with all that solar waste.
I know I sure as heck don't want a bunch of depleted sunlight in my backyard!
Parent
No Solar Projects Approved (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if the BLM has approved any oil wells on BLM land......
Re:No Solar Projects Approved (Score:4, Insightful)
Gosh, you could actually find out, instead of posting vague, unsubstantiated rumors on the Internet. What am I thinking? This is Slashdot! Mod him up!
Parent
Re:No Solar Projects Approved (Score:4, Informative)
I looked, but could only find old articles that ruled in favor of the oil/gas company drilling on Native American land for oil.
If you have more recent ones I'm all ears. :p
"Land Management Bureau, rejecting appeal by 10 American Indian tribes and environmentalists, rules Anschutz Exploration Corp may drill exploratory oil well in southern Montana near ancient rock art site Indians consider sacred
May 23, 2001"
Parent
Re:No Solar Projects Approved (Score:5, Informative)
From the BLM web page:
http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas.html [blm.gov]
It wasn't too hard to find. Being on the main blm web page and all. To answer the question, the BLM does have quite an investment in selling leases for exploiting natural resources. Although, it doesn't explain why they wouldn't be interested in selling leases to exploit sunlight. Of course, we might find out that this was a directive from someone higher up in the administration.
Parent
Re:No Solar Projects Approved (Score:5, Informative)
They're still going to do the studies, and from what I'm seeing they're not planning on approving any of the leases until that study is done:
FTA:
"The BLM in 2006 completed a similar study of the effects of wind farm development in the Midwest. The agency did not, however, halt applications during that process, which began in 2003. Resseguie said that was because wind resources were geographically dispersed and there were no multiple applications for any single location, as there are in California for solar plants."
So it sounds like they were just trying to close the queue so it wouldn't get clogged up while they waited on the results of the survey. It doesn't appear to in any way impact when they will start approving leases.
Parent
Re:No Solar Projects Approved (Score:4, Insightful)
when's the last time you heard of a serious sunlight spill?
Parent
Germany has them (Score:5, Insightful)
While we whine about 'environmental considerations' of grabbing free energy from the sun, other countries are actually doing something about it. I was just in Germany where solar cell farms have been built in many places along the autobahns. Further, there are huge windmills everywhere (turning VERY slowly--Any bird which hits one of these is not paying attention. In France they've gone whole-hog nuke for electricity. There isn't a project alive that we can't make take ten times longer and make ten times the cost over our 'concerns.'
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Germany has them (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
I blame the fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I blame the fact... (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to see just HOW MUCH BLM land exists here in the Southwest. It's the vast majority of land where solar could be a viable enterprise. The amount of private land vs government-land (not withstanding Indian reservations, which I suppose could be argued as casino/government land) vastly outstrips private land holdings.
This is a big deal, because bush is shutting off a huge reserve of prime solar generating real estate on BLM land. I suspect if oil was found on BLM land there would be a cry for getting guvamint out of the land business.
Parent
Possible detrimental environmental effects... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects... (Score:5, Funny)
So, it'll give me light, heat, *and* dinner? Tell me again why this is bad...
Parent
New Mexico Utilities RFP for New Solar Project (Score:4, Informative)
In the same week, a group of New Mexico utilities have announced a RFP for a new solar project [earth2tech.com]. This is interesting since a significant amount of land in rural New Mexico is Federally controlled, either by the BLM or military.
Builders or speculators? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to wonder how many of the corporations/people who are asking for permits actually have the intent (and ability) to build solar array farms, or are they just hoping to grab the land rights now so that they can hold it hostage and sub-lease it later to others?
Re:Builders or speculators? (Score:5, Informative)
California has a mandate that 20% of its power must come from renewables (not including large hydropower plants) by 2012 and higher targets shortly after. The only cost-effective way to meet this requirement is by building massive thermal solar plants very quickly. Lots of the best land for such plants is controlled by the Federal government in one form or another. There are something like 10 500 MW solar farms planned for construction in in various parts of the Mojave desert over the next decade. So, the demand is real.
Parent
ok (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ok (Score:5, Informative)
Solar cells are still made from industrial chemical processes, so they're not necessarily very land-fill friendly (obviously, this depends on the chemical makeup of the cell)....and yes, the cells will wear out and require replacement.
Also, as a joker pointed out earlier, since they don't work at night, you need batteries...our battery technology is also fairly heavy on the heavy metals right now. These also wear out, often faster than the cells do.
In the case that the BLM are talking about, there are a number of interesting possibilities:
* How to bees/other insects react to light reflected back off large banks of cells? Does it mess with their navigation?
* Do any of the plans to get cables out to the banks of cells mess with the wildlife they're trying to protect?
* Do the cells have any (potentially) toxic runoff when hit with heavy rains/hail/etc?
* will any residual heat from the cells mess with the local flora/fauna? (if it's an area that's normally snow-covered in winter, what happens if the heat from the cells keeps it snow-free? Does that mess with any of the local plants cycles?)
Parent
Re:ok (Score:5, Informative)
Thermal solar power works by heating something like liquid sodium and then using that to heat steam to 1000F, which is a very efficient temperature to run a steam turbine. As such, they work at night, for between 2-20 hours after sundown (can even out a partially cloudy day, for example).
Thermal solar doesn't need batteries, and you don't use batteries for a grid intertie solar plant. Most energy is needed during the day, when the sun is brightest, so honestly, the big point is taking peak needs off the coal plants -- which is how you have to size them and where you pay most of your money. Photovoltaics can feed into the grid and provide this peak pretty well, although it's yet to be seen if thermal solar can beat them for efficiency.
Parent
Re:ok (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what their study aims to answer (what exactly are the concerns and how bad they are). Unfortunately random people's suppositions don't substitute research, which is why they are investigating it.
Parent
Imagine! Clueless comments on Slashdot. (Score:4, Informative)
The most interesting thing about this whole debacle has been seeing how many people have so little clue about solar thermal. When the story first broke you could see all these Republican apologists ranting about the horrors of photovoltaic production just as we see in this thread here on Slashdot on the other end of the story.
And then if it wasn't the atrocity of silane gas and photovoltaics then it was about how they were going to have to install all these new power lines. Again, we're seeing this same ignorant idiot trash spewed all over Slashdot.
The truth is, this is about solar thermal and this has been throughly vetted in public documents that are freely available to anyone with the slightest interest in the topic. Such far-left comunist hippies as Arnold Schwarzenegger drafted the document which explains in great detail that they have planned the solar thermal projects in question specifically to intersect with existing grid-interties.
No! Gasp, you mean somebody already thought of it?
Yes, read it yourself. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
It's the Western Governorsâ(TM) Association. Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative. Solar Task Force Report. Get it while it's hot kids.
http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/solar-full.pdf [cleantechl...siness.com].
But what I really like about this whole story, yeah I have enjoyed this story from beginning to end, is that it raised the prominence of solar thermal in the mass media. All the long-haired dope smoking hippies bloggers in the world couldn't have achieved what the Bush BLM managed in a single month.
Thanks BLM!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry when the facts bother you, but solar only recently made it past the "break even" point in regards to energy produced over energy put in during production.
Today on slashdot, lying liars and the lies they tell.
The truth is that we have known for over thirty years that Solar Cells recoup the energy invested in their production in under seven years and may actually do it in less than one year [csudh.edu].
Now, a nuclear plant however ...
...could be safe and efficient, but none of the designs we are using now are particularly deserving of either description (although they are not spectacularly unsafe and are probably safer than many of the coal and oil plants operating in the USA.) And the plants which have been proposed to be built any time in the near future are just more of the same shit.
We would need to start using breeder reactors to reprocess nuclear fuel in order to make building more nuclear make any kind of sense. This is not impossible.
On the issue of solar passing the break even point, however, you are like Bush talking about WMDs in Iraq. Full of fucking shit and with no possible defense other than being misled. Too bad you got modded up (obviously by big oil! heh heh)
Parent
Re:Better than more Nuke Plants (Score:4, Insightful)
Joking aside, my problems with nuclear are many. First, it's not a green as proponents seem to think. Before you can generate steam, you must mine, transport and refine the uranium.
Next you have the issue of the waste. Eventually it must be transported and stored. Say what you will about our ability to store this stuff for a million years, frankly, it's an unknown. I'm aware that many
Another problem is that eventually someone has to decommission all the nuclear plants that have been built. How do you do this and has this cost been factored into the price? How many plants globally have been successfully decommissioned and who gets to pay for it? Is Yucca mountain designed to have old reactors tossed into it?
Finally, here in Canada, the nuclear industry has been plagued by major cost and time overruns and even once built, reactors are not achieving the up times that were promised. It's an industry that could not survive financially without government assistance. I suspect that the same is true for many other installations world-wide.
In the end, the most persuasive argument against nuclear for me is that we (especially in North America) simply don't need nuclear. As a society we would be farther ahead to put the effort and money associated with nuclear into a combination of Geo-thermal, Solar-thermal, Wind and one day even fusion.
Parent