Slashdot Mirror
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."
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
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.
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.
If solar (or ethanol or wind or ... anything) is as good as people like to believe, it can survive without tax credits.
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.
"overwhelmed by applications for large-scale solar energy plants".., that's good news. At least people are trying!
stuff |
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...
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.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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. :-)
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.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
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.
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
Physicists get Hadrons!
Or about 1 million Al Gore type homes.
Oops - he made some improvements last year - so make that only 900,000 homes worth.
You haven't seen the desert southwest, have you?
Is there any way that it could be worse than coal? Do you need two years to answer this question?
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.
friends don't let friends teleport drunk
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
hmmm I wonder if someone "important"
http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/06/15/senator-attacks-solar-energy-industry/
isn't ready to get in line so they
http://green.bligblog.com/oil-companies-and-solar-energy-682.html
are slowing down applications until that "person"
http://thepanelist.com/Hot_Topics/Alternative_Energy/_200805271019/
is ready.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
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.)
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
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.
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-approved document.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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 existing stuff. These are not irreconcilable, unless it is really about power.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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. =)
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Solar power companies are worried that this will harm the industry just as it is poised for explosive growth.
Wasn't it explosive growth of the oil industry without proper environmental research and oversight what got us into this mess in the first place?
Any company that says "I don't like the government employing restrictions in the name of environmental protection" is clearly not a company I want to support, and this is surprising to hear coming from a SOLAR POWER companies who are supposed to be our allies in the GLOBAL WAR ON ENVIRONMENTAL TERROR (or whatever we're calling it today).
Funny. When they wanted to put the fence along the Mexican border on the fast-track to completion, they managed to find a way around environmental regulations for that.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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 - 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...
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I know you were joking but there is a serious answer to your question: Farming.
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!!!!!"
This is actually very convenient! How much baking/TV/laundry are you doing at 4AM? People are most active with their electricity during the day (peak is usually around 4-5PM) and so is the sun.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
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 easily be scaled to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tons of storage primarily using on-site materials. It's an extremely efficient and low cost storage solution and depending upon the scale of the installation can provide hours to days of power without any sun. Since solar thermal sites are typically situated in areas of high insolation such as deserts, a condition were days passed without sun would be extremely rare. Thus, this is indeed a technical replacement for baseline power such as coal or nuclear.
The leader in the market for nitrate salts used in thermal storage applications, yes there's already a market in these things, is a product called HitecXL. I encourage you to google for it and inform yourself on this topic before you continue advising people about the "huge drawbacks".
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 effort) the multi-fuel plant survives and the vertically integrated competition ceases to exist.
Humans don't photosynthesize because they are too busy running around avoiding saber-tooths and other humans to stand around in the sun. Eating things that photosynthesize and crapping out their seeds in rich piles of fertilizer is a better deal for everyone involved (including the saber-tooth).
A plant is sessile because that's been an optimally survivable form given the genetic patterns available to plants and their intersection with real-world conditions. By sitting still, they can harvest enough energy to indulge in titanic production of bulk and/or offspring. In shady swamps, of course, the venus fly-trap with its poor access to nutrients and sunlight evolves to snap up insects.
Sorry about the lack of structure in this post, but the first sentence tells you what happened to the Ents. They were too slow to keep us from eating them, and too fast to photosynthesize enough energy for reproduction. Venus flytraps can only exist in special ecological niches... you will note they are an endangered species.
I guess the deserts are populated with rock-huggers, so we have to ensure that these solar projects don't damage the rocks in Arizona...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
"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 here in the US. And that doesn't include all of the other fossil fuel sources we have, like shale and tar sands and good ole' petroleum. We also have a lot of uranium untouched in North America.
So by all means, advocate that we continue to develop tech like solar and wind. By all means, argue against fossil fuel use on pollution grounds. But quit using the chicken little argument about fossil fuels being close to all used up. It simply isn't true when you look at all fossil fuels, even if you believe we've hit peak oil.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10