US Halts Applications For Solar Energy Projects

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."

Comments

This isn't a bad thing..

[jonnythan]

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:This isn't a bad thing..

[emagery]

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.

Re:This isn't a bad thing..

[mikael]

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:This isn't a bad thing..

[Don853]

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.

Re:This isn't a bad thing..

[fbjon]

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.

This should be easy

[eln]

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:This should be easy

[indifferent children]

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.

Re:This should be easy

[jandrese]

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.

The important line in the summary

[192939495969798999]

"overwhelmed by applications for large-scale solar energy plants".., that's good news. At least people are trying!

Distributed power station

[Space cowboy]

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

Re:Funny how cliches stay true.

[jonnythan]

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:aaahh,

[spun]

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.