US Halts Applications For Solar Energy Projects 481
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."
Printer Friendly Format (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ideally yes but is'nt stopping everything a too radical solution to the problem of poor planning?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A large solar and wind farm _do not_ have the capability to replace the energy generated from a small coal plant on a still cloudy day, and that is your problem right there. I guess you could invest in some _really_ big batteries. 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.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's amazing how far the technology has advanced over the last couple of years and the new products are exciting (as demonstrated by the frequency of /. posts announcing major advances) - Maybe my comment about panel production was a little hasty. But, even with the increased efficiency, that doesn't eliminate footprint associated with large solar farms. The new panels are great for home use (not affected by this interruption), but in order to put out as much energy as a coal plant (let alone nuclear) you
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's amazing how far the technology has advanced over the last couple of years and the new products are exciting (as demonstrated by the frequency of /. posts announcing major advances) - Maybe my comment about panel production was a little hasty. But, even with the increased efficiency, that doesn't eliminate footprint associated with large solar farms. The new panels are great for home use (not affected by this interruption), but in order to put out as much energy as a coal plant (let alone nuclear) you need a huge field of these things. And the plants and critters don't respond well to that (if you're into that kind of thing).
I tend to agree, building giant solar farms out in the middle of nowhere doesn't seem like a very positive step. What would be a positive step is looking at all of the places that we could put it where the land is already in use.
For example, I've been flying into Ontario (the California one) airport a lot for work lately. As you come in to land, you see that the airport is surrounded by this vast sea of warehouses. Acre after acre after acre of blank concrete roof, perhaps with a few skylights thrown in. Cover those enormous areas with solar panels, and you'd probably be generating quite a bit of power. Also, you don't need to worry about long transmission distances - your plant is pretty much right smack in the middle of the city.
This kind of thing couldn't be used for all of our power needs, but particularly in southwestern cities we could probably generate all the power we need for AC (at least) just by putting existing structures to better use. Solar farms on parking lots, warehouses, etc.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
environmental footprint of a large solar farm is worse than that of an oil-rig or gas mine
The problem with both of those is they produce pollution both at the point of production and the point of consumption.
The idea of 'green' also hinges of 'renewable'. The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited, whereas the components needed for production of solar panels are significantly more plentiful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited...
I'm with you on oil and gas but, if we re-process and use sensible nuclear plants, there's enough fissionable material to power the earth for a long, long time. Of course, those are two big ifs.
Limited? (Score:3, Informative)
"The supplies of coal, oil, gas and fissionable materials is severely limited,"
The last three are questionable at best, but the first assertion is laughable. Coal is limited? We have more coal than we'd ever use in centuries. The United States alone has one quarter of the Earth's coal, some 250 gigatonnes. In all our history, we've used less than a fraction of one percent of that supply. Even if we turned coal into gasoline with current fuel economy standards, we'd never run out of coal in several lifetimes
true on coil, not on oil (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't true that "oil deposits in US federal reserves forbidden for drilling could supply the entire world demand for close to 500 years". Total US oil reserves are less than 3% of the world oil reserves, and could supply just the U.S. needs, if somehow we magically extracted all of them instantly, for about 3-4 years. So maybe if you factor in a bunch of new discoveries 10, even 20 might be plausible, but hardly 500.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
haha, solar thermal can.
Germany uses them, and Germany isn't know for it's sunny weather.
The only problem with solar thermal is getting the turbines.
Yes, they can store the super heated liquid and use it to run into the night.
While not considered a base load technology, it's getting pretty damn close.
Added Nuclear as your base load, start building solar thermal plants in the non-arable parts of the US and begin a concentrated effort on making everything electric.
The US will need to change. Maybe that will m
No, solar thermal does have storage. (Score:3, Informative)
Meet your buddy sodium nitrate. It is a salt that is a solid at room temperature and even up to several hundred degrees temperature. However, once it is heated by the oil in the tubes of the trough solar field or within the heliostat of a power tower it turns into a liquid.
The sodium nitrate solution or solar salt is typically just a small percentage of the actual thermal storage solution. The majority of the thermal mass being composed simply of silicate or limestone gravel. Thus, the thermal storage can e
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Solar plants, however, do not operate very efficiently at certain times of the day... (For example, we have this thing called 'darkness' whenever it happens to be 'nighttime'.)
Sometimes, there are lots of clouds too, etc...
Due to these simple points, terrestrial solar power generation stations will NEVER replace the 24/7 reliability of Coal/Gas/Nuclear/Hydroelectric power generation plants. Solar can only be used as a supplement during peak demand in sunny 'daytime', for exampl
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit
It's called SOLAR THERMAL. [wikipedia.org] And you use molten salt or graphite [wikipedia.org] to generate electricity at night.
RS
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So what do you do when it is cloudy for 5 days in a row? Transport electricity across the entire country ?
wrong, again. (Score:4, Informative)
Your ignorance is shocking, and your presumption that know else knows there is a 'nighttime' makes you look like an ass.
Solar thermals trap the super heated liquid that can generate steam to turn turbines throughout the night.
Clouds don't impact their generation much at all.
pretty damn convenient (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And when is electrical consumption the highest? In parts of the US, this is during the day (AC). In other parts, it is in the evening (lights).
If the increased in demand caused by the former could be fulfilled by solar instead of gas/coal/oil, it would already be a major step.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:4, Insightful)
for TWO YEARS? I'm sorry but stopping all new solar projects from getting investment funding for 2 years is not a good move.
What they should be doing is temporarily changing anything in their procedures which would force them to accept or decline an application in a certain period. Then notify all new applicants that there will be a delay and new guidelines are being defined so their application might need to be updated once the guidelines have been determined. Those in the queue will be processed in the order received with any applicant post-action required drops that applicant onto the secondary queue.
stopping the industry's growth is foolish and just what I would expect from a government based on oil industry people. They gutted the hybrid vehicle program as soon as they took office in 2000 so if that isn't a clue to their motives there are probably a dozen more.
LoB
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and
It sounds to me like application b
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason the BLM is calling for this freeze is because they are incompetent government nabobs. They cannot deal with the paperwork, so they are panicking and forcing a freeze in the market
The USPTO coped with a large amount of applications by approving a bunch of crappy applications. This was bad. The BLM is coping with a large amount of applications with a freeze on applications. This is ... bad?
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I'm not sure cutting corners is the right terminology, but insofar as critical infrastructure and price are concerned, a good example may be the EPA's fast tracking of the fence being built along the Mexican border (ostensibly to protect our jobs and Our American Way of Life).
The cos
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutelly. lets not rush into a new energy source before finding out whether it'll screw us over in the long run.
I can see the 'oil is evil' crowd getting annoyed at the delay, but we need to know what the effects of solar technology will be. For one thing the air around large solar plants may be significantly heated, raising the local temperature and damaging the environment immediatelly surrounding the plants.
A small effect perhaps, but so was smoke, once....
Whatever, this is a good move. I may be wrong about the local heating, there may be other dangers, or none at all. I'd prefer the facts came from a properly conducted study then the mouth of a solar power evangelist with passion but no facts supported by evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong about the local heating being a problem. Many cities are tens of square miles, and while they experience a heating effect, it is several degrees, not several tens of degrees.
A light breeze has the effect of spreading the heat from a 1 mile zone across several cubic miles of air in an hour. Significant local heating would *generate* a breeze.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever, this is a good move. I may be wrong about the local heating, there may be other dangers, or none at all. I'd prefer the facts came from a properly conducted study then the mouth of a solar power evangelist with passion but no facts supported by evidence.
How 'bad' would solar have to be to halt it? Would it need to be 50% as bad as fossil fuel? 75%? Twice as bad?
I'd be more inclined to agree with your points - it's sound reasoning - except you are NOT applying it to ALL energy types, just the punk upstart. That's not sound.
Given the huge expense of solar, we're not in danger of blanketing the SouthWest with solar panels anytime soon (although if we found more oil there, there's NO such hesitation in plastering it in oil wells).
The science on solar right now is that it is among the safest and cleanest, period. It's NOT "new" by any stretch. If that's too good to be true, it can be studied while building new plants. There are plenty of economic brakes on solar right now to keep it from becoming a major portion of the grid.
Like everything else the Bush administration does, this is designed to keep oil prices high. Right down to post 9-11 fights on better CAFE fuel standards, and fighting FOR tax credits on Hummers (which exceeded Prius tax credits by 40X!). I swear the only reason that devil hasn't threatened Dubai or Saudi Arabia with war is because he plans to RETIRE there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare that to the potential harm resulting from other sources of electrical generation, where the affects are literally global in scale.
Even compared to the amount of space required for hydroelectric projects, the potential environmental harm is extremely lim
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:4, Informative)
since democrats totally ignore economics, let's do it too, and let's say ... uhm ... that america will print the necessary money
Sounds like the Republican approach to war.
Remember - it's not Democrats vs. Republicans, or Liberals vs. Conservatives. It's People vs. Corporations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your numbers are so far off that it is ridiculous. "5-8%" panel efficiency? Off-the-shelf consumer panels are triple or quadruple that.
And the amount of land required by your calculation is just silly. As another poster points out... even using your lowball 8% efficiency estimate, we'd need only 5% of the US land area to power the entire world. Obviously, powering the entire US would be quite a bit lower than that, and real-world panels are many times more efficient. We'd need only a fraction of a perc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't be so pessimistic. Solar power, and other renewable energies, are starting to get some real momentum. The Economist has a "special report" in the June 21st issue with tons of articles on the subject.
This the first article [economist.com]in the issue, and this is the one on solar power [economist.com]. Click on the little "next article" at the bottom of each page to go through it. I don't think a subscription is required, since I'm not logged in and I can see it.
Here's a exerpt:
The engineers clearly think they can deliver the technology. But can the technology deliver the power? A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that it can. Two years ago a task force put together by the governors of America's western states identified 200 gigawatts-worth of prime sites for solar-thermal power within their territory (meaning places that had enough reliable sunshine, were close to transmission lines and were not environmentally or politically sensitive). That is equivalent to 20% of America's existing electricity-generation capacity: not a bad start.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This isn't a bad thing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
This should be easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The simple answer is that Coal is cheaper than wind and solar.
Also solar takes up a HUGE amount of land. Not the small scale solar systems that people put on their roofs but the large ones that can replace power plants. BTW small home solar in not effected.
Deserts look empty but they are actually one of the more fragile ecosystems.
So you want solar and think it is a good idea put some panels up on your roof.
Re:This should be easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
You're the first person I've ever heard express the opinion that deserts will go away if humans would just stop mucking with things....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Deserts are not desirable ecosystems. They are what happens when you push a healthy ecosystem to the point of collapse. Over time and without human interference all deserts should shrink (this may require one or more ice age/warm period cycles, however.)"
Huh?????
There have been Deserts for a very long time long before man had any real impact on the environment.
As to how desirable they are? Well to some life forms they are very desirable, to other not so much.
Your statements on the "value" of deserts is jus
Re:This should be easy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
There is the matter of the environmental impact on the fields that the panels would be installed, the digging and burying of wire, the materials used and the effect on the environment in the long-term exposure to said materials. Solar panels ain't exactly made of recyclable material these days.
Re: (Score:2)
There are certainly other concerns than comparing it to other plant types. In California, for example, some of the deserts are home to the threatened desert tortoise. Simply building a plant somewhere flat may put it in a nesting area. Depending on the plant type, there are differing support infrastructure requirements, including roads, power feeds, and water supplies, and the path that they take may again affect local wildlife, at least during construction.
There are fewer concerns with the construction
Why did people settle in America? (Score:5, Funny)
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.)
I'll take a crack (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have driven from NYC to California, you know what I mean. It is the richest farmland in the world. And we have entire states of it. 100's of thousands of square miles.
Back in the "olden days", that probably looked like heaven compared to Ireland, Scotland, England, etc.
"I'll take a sunburn and sweat if I can just keep my damn crops alive!!!!!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think the weather and animals in the US are dangerous,
Don't ever, ever visit Australia.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, our country is like 30x larger than yours so we can have 30x as many crappy places to live and still have the same ratio of good/crap.
Conversely, you can find almost any environment you like in the U.S.A. Like it hot and dry? Southwest. Hot and wet? Southeast. Tundra? Alaska. Sunrise on the ocean? Sunset on the Ocean? Rain forest? Get all three in Hawaii. Mountains? We've got a couple of ranges, take your pick. Valleys? Lots.
And as far as why we're not riddled with self-doubt when the env
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Nice post.
My ancestors (mostly scandinavian) came here to log and work in mines, much as they did back home. They were valued for their skill (as opposed to other groups which came here looking for work but without a skilled trade, or one that was useful in the area).
Northern Minnesota looks and feels very much like scandinavia. Many within my family want to visit Finland, for example, but I really don't see the point- I'm sure the people are very nice there but if I'm going to spend that much money on a tr
goverment tit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:goverment tit (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
But I thought... (Score:2)
I'm betting (Score:4, Interesting)
Whoever makes it into the WH will make a big show of giving an executive order to open the applications back up. As to whether this is a good thing or not, I'm not so sure. Solar has been making some big strides, but if everyone is forced to wait a couple of years, who knows what may come out, and what the current implementers will learn in that time? It may just save two years of shitty implementations with obsolete-before-it's-built tech.
The important line in the summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"overwhelmed by applications for large-scale solar energy plants".., that's good news. At least people are trying!
Funny how cliches stay true. (Score:2, Insightful)
The government that governs least governs best, goddammit. Of course this will harm the industry; It's an artificially imposed market restriction!
God forbid somebody do something without those geniuses at the government making sure it's ok first. Them being the kings of noticing unintended consequences in others' ideas. Oh wait...
Re:Funny how cliches stay true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
s/managed/periodically clear-cut/
HTH, HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
Worked great for the investment banks.
Re:Funny how cliches stay true. (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry, are you arguing that large investment banks are/were unregulated and ungoverned?
That's hilarious.
Public Land (Score:5, Informative)
I don't foresee many issues with local government in the middle of the desert.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you don't think the 'middle of the desert' doesn't have a local (I.E. city/town) government? If it doesn't, then it has a country government. Neither level is going to be particularly likely to let plants go up willy-nilly without significant enviromental review. If they don't do the review, then the local Greens and their lawyers will ensure it happens.
Another issue is just who owns huge chunks of land in the So [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You obviously don't own any land. You have confused this with a free country.
NO ONE owns any land. If you owned "your" land, why do you have to make quarterly rent payments?
Ass backwards... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't they come up with the environmental criteria/requirements and state that the application submitter must complete the study and submit the findings with the application. If further study would be required, they could then investigate or push it back to the requesting company/agency.
Distributed power station (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
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
Re:Distributed power station (Score:5, Funny)
$800/month power bill?!
Even in Nevada (Nevada Power has very high rates) I don't even know of anyone that comes close, even with a 7 SEER central air unit.
Are you growing weed or something?
With that kind of usage, I'd expect the DEA to come visit to make sure you're not!
Re:Distributed power station (Score:4, Informative)
It's pretty easy - PG&E have a tiered cost-system, so it costs more as you use more. I've probably doubled my electricity use since it cost me $200/month, but the cost gets disproportionately higher.
I have a pool (which has a pump that soaks up 40A) and I have air-conditioning which can do the same. Add the washer/dryer, pond pumps (another 5A) and general load (server in the garage, lighting, etc..) and I'm using ~80kWH/day.
Hence the solar system :) Yes, this is CA, but no weed...
Simon.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why cover the land ? Cover the roofs instead!
I was once told this is because it devalues the property. It's a shame that other people don't think solar panels on a roof are attractive.
On a side note, I would like to see solar panels installed over the vast stretches of parking lot we have in shopping malls, and amusement parks. It would produce electricity, and keep my car cooler in the summer.
Re:Distributed power station (Score:4, Interesting)
As part of the proposal, the company referenced the appraisal journal [ongrid.net] (warning: PDF) which establishes that the resale value of a home powered by solar energy increases by $20 for every $1 in saved operating costs. In my case, that adds $168k to the value of my home (on day-1, it gradually tails off over time). This is actually more than I pay for it!
I think the argument goes that people can afford to spend more on the house because their energy bill will be lower every month - you're trading energy bill for mortgage payment... I'm not sure it makes sense to me, but the appraisers presumably read their own industry journal :)
Simon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Good idea, my only question would be economies of scale, as well as liability. I think it's definitely worth crunching numbers on:
1) is it more efficient to install (& maintain!) 1000 acres of 'solar farm' in one bulk lot or some otherwise nonproductive land (when you consider in the labor, time, cost, infrastructure) or 10,000 0.1 acre roofs? How "nonproductive" would the land have to be to make this value equation positive? I can easily see the infrastructure, labor, and maintenance far, far exceed
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the law (at least in CA). They have to agree to let you do it.
Consider a company that paid for solar panels to be installed on your roof, then charged you for the energy they produced. Any overage they could charge to the electricity supplier as it feeds back into the grid. You get a reduced rate for the electricity because you're leasing your roof to the company.
Seems like it could work...
Simon
soak it up (Score:2, Funny)
Or about 1 million Al Gore [snopes.com] type homes.
Oops - he made some improvements [tennesseepolicy.org] last year - so make that only 900,000 homes worth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yet, from the *same* article you linked to (yes, you actually have to *read* it all), his carbon-footprint per year is precisely zero. Can you say that ?
Simon
Freeze? (Score:2, Insightful)
Solar power plants on reservations? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure as long as the land is close to transmission.
Missing something here (Score:2)
I am gapping I think.
How will these solar installs (whether thermal or PV) possibly do more environmental damage than drilling more wells, burning coal, burning oil or dealing with the aftermath of a spent reactor?
Unless I am missing something big, lets keep approving AS we do the study. Who is really this scared of Solar. Not us common folk! Is it the coal industry, oil, wind? It has to be somebody, because this does not seem to make sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are missing something big. The Endangered Species Act. It is a violation of Federal Law to even TOUCH an Endangered Animal (with the usual exceptions for scientific research), much less to build something where it lives.
For a start.
I'd also like to point out that OTHER options, such as nuclear power plants, don't get convenient fill-in-the-blanks Environmental Impact Templates - everything but Solar has to do its EIS from scratch, rather than follow some pre-approve
hmmm what a cowinkadinky (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Nothing new under the sun (Score:2)
This is the same regulatory framework that stymied geothermal development in the 1990s, and a favored control mechanism by the environmentalist lobbies. They have made it very difficult to develop in the western deserts for other people, they just never expected it to impact their pet projects. An introductory course on unintended consequences.
The oil and gas development bit is a red herring, as mineral extraction (e.g. oil and gas development) is specially protected by very old Federal statutes that mitig
Electrical Units!!! (Score:2)
Is it too much to ask to get rid of the freaking "power xxx homes" nonsense and put things in terms of MW or MWh?!
This is supposed to be news for nerds, not news for soccer moms whose only perspective on life and electricity is their own home! (Small subset of soccer moms, that is.)
Interesting Timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I find it interesting that this 'necessary delay' is happening right at the same time that Bush is pushing for oil development in more ecologically sensitive areas like Alaska. Is he hoping the delay will make oil exploration more necessary, or that the public will get the impression that there are big enviro concerns regarding solar power? When people read that the gov has halted something to 'investigate environmental concerns', they assume that there must be some concerns in the first place.
I'm not saying there aren't enviro considerations with solar- but why wasn't this done years ago? And why not study solar projects already up and running? The timing is interesting is all I'm saying. And two years!? Give me a break.
Rock-huggers... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:aaahh, (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place
Yah right - activists do not want to make the world better, They want to prevent me from being happy, because my happy is different from their happy - and they think that makes me wrong.
Why do you think they never want a compromise? For them, a compromise is a loss - they need to stop others, not move themselves forward.
My 2 cent political descriptions: Republicans want to build new stuff, Democrats want to redistribute exi
Re:aaahh, (Score:4, Insightful)
But whatever, go denigrate people who've dedicated their lives to making the world a better place if that helps you sleep at night.
I agree that ridiculing activists is a waste of time that could be dedicated to something more useful. But, from my experience, most of the most energetic activists I see haven't dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. They've dedicated their lives to pouring huge amounts of time and effort making themselves feel like they're making the world a better place - Big difference. Writing letters and submitting petitions is typically a lot more effective than marching with signs, but not nearly as much fun nor as good a social experience. There are a lot of excellent exceptions of course, but the trend seems to be to latch on to a cause you like, find some statistics/publications that support it, ignore all contrary evidence, then make some signs and go harass anyone with an opposing opinion.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant - I'm hopped up on chocolate-covered espresso beans. =)
Re:aaahh, (Score:4, Interesting)
But I'm sure you've known a lot of activists personally and have direct experience with their activities, or you wouldn't have made such sweeping generalizations, right?
I wouldn't say that I know many, but that's mainly because it typically doesn't take me long to assess them and write them off as uneducated and unrecoverably biased. I do know a few and I've met a lot. Of course, it all depends on your definition - I only know one guy who takes it to the point of marching around with signs, but I know & assist a few who are the write letters/circulate petitions/work on city council types. Maybe the 'activists' you associate with are just coming from a very different pool than mine.
That doesn't describe a single activist that I've known.
Come to Los Alamos, NM on August 6 [wikipedia.org] - I'll introduce you to hundreds. Last year I listened to a very well-received speech from a guy who had served overseas. He lost his son to leukemia not long after returning. Absolutely fucking tragic - I felt for him. The kicker was that he (and based on comments I heard in the crowd, many others) believed that the leukemia was a result of him being exposed to depleted uranium in the field and carrying back radiation that infected his son. He punctuated that point by pointing out the extremely long half-life of DU. The notion that radiation from DU could be carried back and induce leukemia coupled with the idea that a long half-life corresponds to high levels of radioactivity can only be produced by extreme levels of both ignorance and bias.
You wanted an argument? Oh, I'm sorry, but this is abuse...
I notice that your post and your sig are highly correlated...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because it is so nonsensical not only to want clean energy. Let's laugh at people because making clean energy is sometimes harder and more complicated than it looks. Yes, that makes all the sense in the world, as does lumping all activists together and tarring them all with the same brush.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could build a giant array of solar panels over area covered by grass. With no sunlight, the grass dies, the rains wash away the soil, havoc commences, etc.
Re:What environmental impact!? (Score:4, Funny)
You haven't seen the desert southwest, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
Err. We are talking about deserts here, not noted for their lush vegetation. Else they wouldn't be deserts...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, you can build a giant greenhouse, in the shape of a dome. Leave it open around the bottom rim, and put a hollow tower in the middle, with intakes at the bottom, and with the top uncapped and protruding through the top of the greenhouse.
The solar energy will create a temperature difference between the external air and the internal air, causing air to be drawn in through the bottom edges of the dome and vented through the tube out the top.
All you need to do is stick wind turbines in the tower.
You'd be pr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Loosely coupled systems are more survivable, though usually less efficient, than vertically integrated systems. A power plant that uses multi-fuel burners and switches between propane and methane based on market price and availability will make more profit than a single-fuel plant unless said plant is located directly on top of a natural gas well owned by the plant. If all the methane (or all the propane) gets consumed by something else (say, a nanomachine or an inflammable bacteria or a government war ef