Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

US Halts Applications For Solar Energy Projects

Posted by kdawson on Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:29 AM
from the think-of-the-mojave-ground-squirrels dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Freeze On US Solar Plant Applications Lifted 282 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by MrMunkey (1039894) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:31AM (#23968049) Homepage
    Here is the printer friendly format for easier reading. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us/27solar.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]
  • by jonnythan (79727) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:32AM (#23968077) Homepage

    They probably should have done this sooner, but it's better to do the EIS before the explosive growth of solar plants.

    This way, they have a much better idea what the effects will be, and have more clear, consistent, comprehensive information and data on which to judge applications.

    I think the companies are just upset because it might prevent them from securing investors during the time they can't even submit an application. But for the people, and the industry, it's probably not that big of a deal.

    • This reminds me of code freeze cycles in open source projects... as annoying as they may be for developers (and some users), they're necessary.

    • by emagery (914122) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:57AM (#23968437)
      I agree that it isn't a BAD thing... what bothers me, though, is how many in our government are pushing oil and coal as being uber critical to american energy needs... so much so that environment corners cut are worth the price... but when an alternative to their bias comes up, it's time to throw up the red flags... this isn't to say that oil/coal don't get enviro'd up the yin-yang, but the one sided bias is upsetting for a pro-solar guy like myself.
    • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Friday June 27 2008, @12:56PM (#23969507)

      I think they need to SERIOUSLY consider what kind of trash these plants will be at end of life.
      I'm concerned about the amount of nano-particles being used.

      They need to do the same for CFL (which suck for lighting and may be an environmental catastrophe in the making).

        • by mikael (484) on Friday June 27 2008, @12:04PM (#23968543)

          What they mean is: We fear that if solar and wind power are allowed to grow, it may create unemployment in the coal-mining and gas extraction industries.

          A large solar and wind farm had the capability to replace the energy generated from a small coal mine. , which of course affects the voting pattern.

          • by Don853 (978535) on Friday June 27 2008, @12:30PM (#23969053)
            That's not what they mean at all. What they mean is:

            We have a giant paperwork backlog and we're totally swamped. We're going to streamline the process. Don't give us anything new until we're done with that. In the meantime, we wouldn't have gotten to your new applications anyway.
            • by gnick (1211984) on Friday June 27 2008, @12:34PM (#23969121) Homepage

              Seriously, anyone who has seriously looked into green energy has found just this one huge drawback (there are others which I will not go into now) insurmountable for large scale operation.

              I agree with what you have to say, but feel the need to run off on a tangent.

              The term 'green' bugs me when applied to solar power. Producing solar cells isn't a very friendly process and the environmental footprint of a large solar farm is worse than that of an oil-rig or gas mine. Just because they don't create waste while operating, IMHO, doesn't make them green. Hopefully this hiatus will yield a rational analysis of that. Nuclear power seems much 'greener' to me despite the fact that it's rarely labeled as such.

              • by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Friday June 27 2008, @01:11PM (#23969787)
                Nansolar's new printing process for creating solar panels (as well as their super-cool SolarPly material you simply cut to the desired size/shape and attach leads to pull power off) is extremely environmentally friendly compared to high vacuum deposition used in older glass panels.

                In addition, generation facilities using solar thermal energy (i.e. heating a medium such as molten sodium) instead of photovoltaic panels are pretty "green", as they're just a bunch of mirrors.

                /the more you know

      • by olyar (591892) on Friday June 27 2008, @12:25PM (#23968949) Homepage

        I would think that the air around a solar plant would actually be cooler, since the panels are converting solar energy into electric power and then transferring it to the grid.

        If that energy had not been captured, it would have heated the ground.

        My understanding is that the environmental impact issues of solar are focused more on the materials involved in manufacturing and/or disposing of solar panels.

        • by fbjon (692006) on Friday June 27 2008, @01:29PM (#23970147) Homepage Journal
          Covering the area of the US with 8% efficient solar panels will give about 3,9 * 10^14 W during the day, assuming a fairly average 500 W / m^2. The (total!) energy comsumption of the entire world was only about 1,5 * 10^13 in 2005, according to Wikipedia. Covering just 5% of the US area would match the world energy consupmtion during the day.


          Now, use better panels with closer to 20% efficiency, and spread them around in more efficient locations, such as in the world's deserts, and you have yourself abundant energy using nothing but solar panels.

  • by eln (21727) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:34AM (#23968097) Homepage

    People need the electricity. The BLM should only need to answer one question: Will the proposed solar energy plant harm the environment more than a natural gas/coal/oil plant would to produce the same amount of power? If not, let it be built.

    As a resident of Texas, I hate that we're building more and more coal-fired power plants when we have such abundant sun and wind out here that we could be using instead. Hell, I have to suffer through 2 months (and counting) of 100+ degree days, I'd like to at least be getting something out of all that sun other than dehydration and sunburn.

    • by indifferent children (842621) on Friday June 27 2008, @12:02PM (#23968525)
      I'd like to at least be getting something out of all that sun other than dehydration and sunburn.

      Well, if you can find some way to grant a monopoly to the oil companies on the harnessing of solar power, I'm sure we can clear-up these bureaucratic hurdles PDQ.

    • I have to suffer through 2 months (and counting) of 100+ degree days,

      This is probably a really dumb question, but as I Brit I have never figured out why settlers chose to live in America. I mean, the climate seems to spend half the year trying to KILL you. I've been to Boston in January and got snowed in my hotel with 6-foot/2-metre snowdrifts that arrived in ONE NIGHT. I've been to Houston in May and been stuck in my hotel lest the 48c/115f heat burn me to a frazzle. I went to California in February and they had to close the coastal highway because the sea had smashed it up.

      I don't doubt for a moment that the USA is a lovely place to live IF you have air conditioning and central heating, but when the first settlers turned up a few hundred years ago, long before climate control, exactly what made them think "This is place to live! This location is ideally suited! We shall search no further!"?

      Now I realise that the Pilgrims were essentially an extreme religious cult who got booted out of the Netherlands for being too nutty (and believe you me, the Netherlands is a pretty liberal place, getting kicked out of there really does take some doing - they must have been like Waco-quality loons). I know they also faced persecution in England for much the same thing. I also know that the British/Netherland climate of, essentially, rain rain rain, cloud, rain, does get a bit depressing, but at least the weather here never tries to KILL you. Any day of the year, anywhere in the country, you can step outside for the whole day and you won't die.

      Whereas the Pilgrims set up home in BOSTON for the WINTER?

      Then there's the wildlife. We don't have any dangerous wildlife, we shot it all, whereas you lot appear to have a country full of poisonous plants and poisonous/pointy-toothed predators. If the American weather isn't trying to kill you, there's some ivy or crocodile waiting to give you grievous pain.

      And then you sing songs about how great your country is. Sure, your people are virtually all fabulous (and anyone who says otherwise clearly hasn't met many of you personally), and ten out of ten for looking on the bright side of things, but your country is trying to kill you - how can that not introduce an element of self-doubt? How can you chaps be so religious when every time you step out of your house/car, some part of God's wonderful environment tries to nail you in the head?

      When it comes down to energy conservation, do you never hover your finger over the thermostat, hesitate and think "Wouldn't it be a lot more energy efficient if I lived somewhere else entirely?".

      (Iceland - it's the future of datacentres, believe you me.)

        • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Friday June 27 2008, @12:12PM (#23968675) Homepage Journal
          You're saying that without humans there would be no deserts? I find this assertion to be difficult to believe. There is an argument that global warming has caused deserts to grow, but one also has to consider the effect of desert reclamation (the Soviets were big on this) through irrigation and careful land management.

          It's also blatantly wrong to say that deserts are collapsed ecosystems. Another ecosystem that dies off can turn into a desert, but within the desert is an ecosystem all to itself. They may not be desirable to humans, but there is no shortage of species that call a desert home.
  • "overwhelmed by applications for large-scale solar energy plants".., that's good news. At least people are trying!

  • Public Land (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thelasko (1196535) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:38AM (#23968177) Journal
    This is only for use of land owned by the Federal Government. You can still do whatever you want with private land, providing you have the proper zoning and building permits from the local government.

    I don't foresee many issues with local government in the middle of the desert.
  • by Space cowboy (13680) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:44AM (#23968255) Journal

    Personally I think it's probably better to distribute the power-generation facility onto the roofs of all the residents in these 'southwestern states'... Use the wasted space productively...

    • There's virtually no environmental impact, in fact you're helping the environment by reducing the load on the power stations
    • It actually reduces the need for air-conditioning - because a fair amount of the solar energy your roof would soak up is converted to electricity
    • The generation is local, so there's less loss as electricity is transported across the country
    • There are the mentioned rebates and tax credits to reduce the initial cost.

    I'm in the process of installing an 11.9 kW system on the roof of my home in CA. It's costing about $80k (of which I expect to get $12-16k back in rebates) , and it'll take my electricity bill down from $800/month to ~$100/month. Saving ~$700/month makes payback in ~8 years, and the panels have a 25-year lifespan (at which point they're at ~80% efficiency of day-1).

    Why cover the land ? Cover the roofs instead!

    Simon

  • by columbus (444812) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:52AM (#23968357)

    I don't know why this popped into my head.

    Perhaps it would be a good idea to speak to the Indians about building solar power plants on their land.

    We pushed them off of all the best land and consigned them to places that were arid and infertile. We consoled our consciences by telling ourselves by saying 'hey, we left them with a shitpile of land'. Of course the land wasn't good for anything . . . at least not then.

    Additionally, the Indian reservations are a perennial backwater, mired in poverty and desperately in need of external investment. An enterprising company may be able to get access to large amounts of sundrenched land it needs while the Indians get the external investment they need - a mutually beneficial commercial relationship.

    Also, the moratorium will tend to press potential investors away from public land and could give reservation based solar farms the chance to leapfrog development in other areas.

  • by sgt scrub (869860) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .muitnias.> on Friday June 27 2008, @12:02PM (#23968517) Homepage

    hmmm I wonder if someone "important"
    http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/15/senator-attacks-solar-energy-industry/ [redgreenandblue.org]
    isn't ready to get in line so they
    http://green.bligblog.com/oil-companies-and-solar-energy-682.html [bligblog.com]
    are slowing down applications until that "person"
    http://thepanelist.com/Hot_Topics/Alternative_Energy/_200805271019/ [thepanelist.com]
    is ready.

    • Re:goverment tit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 27 2008, @11:39AM (#23968193)

      But make sure the oil companies keep getting their tax subsidies. I mean, how do we expect these poor petro companies to compete with the market controlling renewable energy conglomerates?

    • Re:aaahh, (Score:5, Funny)

      by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:40AM (#23968195)

      The world needs more Ron Paul type characters.

      It needs an entire Ron Paul font. :-) Man, that was weird...

      I think is funny, because there's a good overlap between the group that is rabidly "alternative energy" and the group that wants draconian government environmental policies. I love it when thing blow up in faces like this. I have the day off, so I'm gonna go out and find an activist to laugh at. :-)

      • Re:aaahh, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spun (1352) <<moc.oohay> <ta> <yranoituloverevol>> on Friday June 27 2008, @11:53AM (#23968369) Journal

        Stupid people have existed in every group, every movement, every race and nation, for all time. For instance, a lot of stupid people like Ron Paul. A lot of stupid people like Obama, and McCain. There are just a lot of stupid people. It isn't smart to judge a group by the stupid people that support it, but by the smart people who do.

        As for laughing at activists, the only people I've met who consider that worthwhile are people who haven't done anything good and decent with their lives, and resent people who have. But whatever, go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place if that helps you sleep at night.

    • by jonnythan (79727) on Friday June 27 2008, @11:45AM (#23968259) Homepage

      Well, the government tends to frown on corporations building power plants on public land without, you know, checking with them first.

      I think you don't understand what's going on here. The Bureau of Land Management is in charge of those vast stretches of deserted desert in the southwest. This isn't private land - indeed, the alternative to dealing with the BLM is to build on private land instead.

      These companies are submitting applications to get the BLM to let them build on public land. The BLM has to decide whether to let the applicant build power generation facilities on the particular piece of public land they're looking at. Oftentimes, many different applications will be submitted for the same patch of land, and BLM has to decide whether to let one build the proposed plant, or to hold out for something else.

      If you want to build some solar plant on your own private land, that's another matter, and you don't have to send an application to the BLM. There will be regulations and approvals and so forth, but you can still do it.

      There is no freeze on the building of all solar power generation stations - this is a freeze on applications for using public land managed by the BLM only.