Freeze On US Solar Plant Applications Lifted 282
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."
Re:no i was wrong :( (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:Frozen? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:no i was wrong :( (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Interesting)
I do believe you'll find that use of actual photovoltaic solar cells, which is the only thing most people seem to think of when Solar is mentioned, is one of the LAST things on the minds of businesses looking to do solar power. High energy solar power production is primarily done using mirrors to heat steam to drive a turbine. Essentially the same technology most other power plants use, but using sunlight to heat the water instead of nuclear fission/fossil fuels. Hence, the difference between solar energy production and more traditional forms is the difference in what is used to produce the heat, and I think you'll find an array of mirrors a bit cheaper than a nuclear containment vessel or a boiler and the associated pollution control mechanisms.
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.
Re:Frozen? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're referring to the coat staining incidents, I don't believe they are meant for 'controlling something through fear'. I think they're lame publicity stunts, which is what PETA does day in, day out. This is among such stunts as public nudity, asking that (ingrid newkirk)'s body be eaten after she dies, and asking the city of hamburg, PA to change its name.
By the way, Sen. Mccarthy, if you're comparing staining a coat with pig's blood with random acts of kidnapping followed by videotaped behadings... I really don't know what to say.
Re:Frozen? (Score:3, Interesting)
No need to supply citations. What you just said sounds completely consistent with other views I've heard from the PETA world.
I thoroughly disagree with their demand that we give animals the same moral stature we give people. But saying that their moral imperatives are bad is not the same thing as saying they "lack compassion". Indeed, you could argue that they have too much compassion, since they are so determined to mitigate the suffering of animals that they're willing to let humans suffer for it.
Re:Germany has them (Score:3, Interesting)
The laws were actually made to support alternative energy sources, and while some are misguided (the photovoltaics subsidies aren't really doing much to reduce cost or support the local production of solar cells), the electric companies doesn't get much to say about how much they have to pay for the electricity they are forced to buy.
Re:No Solar Projects Approved (Score:3, Interesting)
Take the million acres and let the rest return to normal.
Re:Frozen? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Frozen? (Score:1, Interesting)
The amount of damage to the environment caused by making cars go further, and spend more time stationary with their engines running, for five years is a lot more than the amount that the bridge caused.
Just to clarify, what you appear to be saying here is that these birds have to fuck off because people are a) driving too much and b) driving cars which are inefficient when stopped.
If the traffic spends a lot of time just sitting around, then it's probably traffic that could easily be electric vehicles, which frankly are pretty readily available. We could charge a lot of full-EVs at night basically for free, when we have a lot of power going to waste due to the nature of our power plants. And an even better solution is to replace as much as possible of it with altfuel/electric public transportation.
Therein lies your ultimate hypocrisy: you're talking about caring about the environment and then acting like you have a god-given right to drive around on dino juice, which is NOT A SUSTAINABLE ACTIVITY PERIOD THE END FULL FUCKING STOP. This is basically ignorant. Realize that it's bullshit and that we shouldn't build more bridges because we can't figure out a smarter way to travel. I love driving my own car around (and I'm burning gasoline too, but I'm headed towards a TDI on WVO-derived biodiesel) but ultimately I don't think the practice is sustainable, or at least it won't be any time in the immediate future. Batteries are too gross, fuel cells aren't here yet and aren't all that clean to produce either, and even the cleanest biofuels produce nasty pollutants (Biodiesel produces plenty of oxides of nitrogen.)
The amount of damage to the environment caused by making cars go further, and spend more time stationary with their engines running, for five years is a lot more than the amount that the bridge caused.
And every single bit of that damage is the fault and responsibility of the people driving the cars, and not of some environmentalists who were ultimately doing the right thing. The only tragedy is that the bridge was held up for only five years, and not indefinitely. Because people knew they'd eventually get their bridge, they didn't have to seek other solutions which would be more efficient, like carpooling or public transportation, which could have benefited from additional demand.
As long as people like you think they are environmentalists and convince the stupid and easily led that they are in fact deserving of the description, it's seriously hard to make believe believe that a change of lifestyle is necessary (or at least a substantial technology upgrade. no more internal combustion engines!)
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" :)
Re:no i was wrong :( (Score:3, Interesting)
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)?
The Bureau of Land Management is ostensibly holding this land in the public trust. To what use could we possibly put a bunch of desert that would be better than reducing our dependence on fossil fuels? Build dirtbike tracks?