Freeze On US Solar Plant Applications Lifted

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."

Comments

Frozen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Big Oil doesn't like Big Sun.

Re:Frozen?

[Anonymous Coward]

so Big Oil is like Linux right?

>:)

Re:Frozen?

[mweather]

So your complaint is that environmentalists care about the environment, not people? I have a similar complaint about humanitarians. They don't care about the environment.

Re:Frozen?

[sm62704]

Hippies with money don't care about the poor trying to get by with high heating oil/energy costs.

"Hippies with money" is an oxymoron. PETA isn't hippies, it's yuppies. Upwardly mobile professionals with too much money and not enough compassion.

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

There are many lame things about PETA. But what exactly about them shows a "lack of compassion"? Because they'd ban animal testing? That's not a choice I'd agree with, but it has legitimate moral arguments.

Demonizing people you disagree with is so 90s!

Re:Frozen?

[y86]

"Hippies with money" is an oxymoron.

Really? I'm pretty sure I went to college with a number of Hippies with HUGE trust funds.

Re:Frozen?

[y86]

But what exactly about them shows a "lack of compassion"? Because they'd ban animal testing? That's not a choice I'd agree with, but it has legitimate moral arguments.

How about assaulting people over their choice of clothing? Controlling something through fear... oh yeah, it's a terrorist organization. Wow... compassion what?

Re:Frozen?

[y86]

I'm pretty sure my families selfmade multimillion dollar empire will be fine.

Thanks for worrying though.

Re:Frozen?

[LaskoVortex]

multimillion dollar empire

If you are calling a few million dollars an "empire", you are stuck in the 50's.

Re:Frozen?

[gunnk]

Are Bush and Co. big oil folks? Yep.
Do I think the Bush administration has been a tremendous screw-up. Definitely.

Are they responsible for the high cost of oil? Only partly.

From what I can tell (yeah, I geek out a bit over economics and finance stuff), *most* of the cost of oil is due to declining growth in production intersecting increasing growth in demand. When that happens price tends to jump quickly and far.

There are things that change the timing of the price boom and some of those were under the Bush administration's control, but the biggest factor is good old supply and demand.

Re:Frozen?

[TheRaven64]

My main complaint is environmentalists who don't care about the environment. Near where my mother lives, there were plans to build a bridge which would take traffic away from the city centre. One of the main reasons for this was that the traffic spent a lot of time stationary, pouring out pollution for no no gain. This was held up for almost five years by a very small number of protesters who were complaining that it would destroy habitats for a few birds (none of which were endangered or even rare). 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.

Re:Frozen?

[Anonymous Coward]

If birds are part of the environment, why aren't people?

We're both living organisms that shape the world around us.

No, this isn't a troll. I've written essays on this topic and it gets quite interesting.

Re:Frozen?

[feed_me_cereal]

Again, how does this equate to a *lack* of compassion? You've only shown that they have an abundance of compassion for animals, rivaling even their compassion for people. That doesn't mean they lack compassion for people.

Re:Frozen?

[CannedTurkey]

"The Republicans can act like they're good for the economy, but they're full of crap." QFT & E

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

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?

[jacquesm]

nothing like the people that are against everything.

Doesn't matter how good a proposal is, there will always be downsides, and there will always be people that will use these downsides to block anything and everything just to show they have power.

If the 1800's would have been like that the world would look a whole lot different today.

There would be no railroads, probably no roads/cars and aircraft/airports and certainly no space travel.

Progress requires sacrifice, the tough bit is that lots of stuff got sacrificed to profits, not to progress and we're not facing the backlash of that.

The pendulum once disturbed never quite regains its balance.

Re:Frozen?

[feed_me_cereal]

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?

[fm6]

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:Frozen?

[freemywrld]

White trust fund kids with dreadlocks = trustafarians

My favorite are the fake Jamaican accents and the belief that smoking a lot of pot makes you a Rastafarian.

Re:Frozen?

[geekoid]

All PETA people I ahve met don't ahve a lick of compassion. They've become religious zealots who only care about having an excuse to hate someone.
Beside, showing compassion does nothing for the dead.

I work in, and live near, Portland Oregon. More then our share of these bastards.

Re:Frozen?

[mikael]

One of the SF Bay Area radio stations had a discussion on this some time ago - The DJ described one of the environmentalists group as a bunch of yuppies who had gone up into the mountains, cut down trees to build their luxury log cabins and now didn't want anyone else to move in.

I don't know how true it is, but the same happens in the UK. You have ex-financial city people downsizing to the countryside, who buy up all the rustic farmhouses (designed to house entire extended farming families) and then object to the mass construction of new housing to replace the homes that they have bought up.

Re:Frozen?

[mikael]

It's either blame the banks for speculating on oil instead of mortgages or blame China. China is rapidly industrializing. They are producing 5 million graduates/year in order to create a middle class. Given that their total population is 1 billion, their goal is probably going to be to get 30% of the population through university (a total of 300 million people).

At the same time, the manufacturing factories are moving to the more distant provinces as the workers start shopping around for the best paying jobs.

Another report suggests that while China produces 60% of their consumed oil, that is going to go away within the next 6 years.

Re:Frozen?

[A440Hz]

If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?

Re:Frozen?

[QuantumRiff]

I bet if you looked further into it, you would find the small group of vocal protesters probably lived near the bridge location, and didn't want increased traffic, or something blocking their view.. A huge windfarm spent years getting approval in new england, because some rich people didn't want to see them from their houses, or when out on their yachts, so they came up with every environmental excuse they could find. It sounds so much better to say "im trying to save the environment" than "not im my back yard!"

Re:Frozen?

[QuantumRiff]

Keep in mind, one of PETA's VP's is a Diabetic.. So its a little funny to be arguing against animal testing when your alive BECAUSE of research done on animals.. (go look up penn and tellers "bullshit" episode on PETA)

Re:Frozen?

[hey!]

I hope you realize that you are reasoning emotionally, not analytically.

The target of your polemic are (a) hippies with (b) money who (c) care about rare birds and (d) don't care about poor people. Just because somebody demonstrating caring about rare birds doesn't mean he doesn't demonstrate caring about people in other circumstances. That's an assumption you are making for polemical purposes, so that you can brand anybody who disagrees with you on an issue as a hypocrite.

Also, the implication is that anybody who has anything to say should just STFU if you think there's an issue that's more important. It's a BS position, because there's always a more important issue you can scrounge up. If you want to have any credibility arguing this position, you'd better show that you've dedicated your life to assisting the poor.

You can't be a serious thinker about issues and be a single issue person. The world doesn't work that way. Sometimes it's time to stand up for the environment, and sometimes it's time to stand up for the downtrodden. And quite often doing one is doing the other.

If you knew anything about environmentalism other than what you've learned from right wing bullshitters, you'd know that environmental problems fall disproportionately on the poor. Who breaths the most pollution? The poor. Who suffers the most from climate change or short sighted, locally focused water management? The poor.

The middle class don't do so great either, under the rape the environment philosophy.

But if you're wealthy, you get the lion's share of the economic benefits of that philosophy. Using that money, can simply move away from problems. Move to the outer suburbs, and buy a vacation home in Vail. If you despoil your native country, you can always go to Costa Rica to stay at a marvelous eco-friendly resort.

It's not that I have anything against the wealthy in general. I've known quite a few of them, and a lot of them are forward looking, socially responsible problem solvers. But this argument that environmentalists ignore the poor is just ignorant. It's worse than ignorant. It's willfully ignorant.

You don't give a shit about the poor, you're just exploiting them to make a rhetorical point. No person sincerely interested in the poor takes the attitude that nobody can have any other priorities but the poor.

Re:Frozen?

[h2_plus_O]

Upwardly mobile professionals with too much money and not enough compassion.

Compassionately spoken, sir.

Re:Frozen?

[sycodon]

Don't forget the millions upon millions that die from Malaria. Why? Because the only real effective measure, DDT, was outlawed.

 

Re:Frozen?

[drinkypoo]

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?

[drinkypoo]

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:Frozen?

[drinkypoo]

The price of gas is subsidized with human lives, and with tax money. You really think you're just paying at the pump? Oh and, say goodbye to our breathable atmosphere.

Re:Frozen?

[megaditto]

You think there's any difference there?

Kind of reminds me of that "same shit, different asshole" thingie.

Re:Frozen?

[Broken Toys]

A: Slow moving vegetarians.

Re:Frozen?

[Lucidus]

One of the best posts I've read on /. in a long time. Thanks.

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

Yes, and the Roe in Roe v. Wade is now against abortion. People are allowed to change their opinions.

I'll say it one last time, then move on: I'm not defending anything about PETA. I'm simply pointing out the stupidity of the claim that they "lack compassion". It's a standard cop-out, designed to dehumanize the people you disagree with.

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

PETA displays a lack of compassion for the realities of life ...

And then you cite a bunch of examples of how they don't understand the realities of life. And you know, I 100% agree that they don't. But "lack of understanding" and "lack of compassion" are not the same things. They're both negative, but that doesn't make them the same.

Finally, I do think that the members of PETA are a bunch of idiots...

Whatever. We're not talking about their intelligence.

There's a persistent fallacy in this discussion. It probably has a fancy latin name, but I don't know what it is. It goes like this: if you can say enough negative things about somebody, anything you say about them that's negative must be true.

Re:Frozen?

[oldhack]

No, this isn't a troll. I've written essays on this topic and it gets quite interesting.

Really? What does it say?

Re:Frozen?

[daBass]

Uhm, in the long term, solar is cheaper than fossil fuels for producing electricity. And we won't run out of it. Seen oil and other fossil fuel prices lately? That is supply and demand for you and demand is going up and supply is down. And while people focus on oil prices only, coal prices have almost doubled in the past year too.

The poor will be suffering due to money spent on oil wars, not from money spent on renewable energy.

The *only* long term answer is wind and solar plus nuclear and geothermal for base-load power when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.

Re:Frozen?

[linzeal]

If they are just sitting around it would be far more efficient to build a light rail system that is in constant motion and build park and ride infrastructure on the main thoroughfares. Cars, even electric cars are not the solution if your goal is to minimize the amount of people in a given area. People are inherently filthy animals that eat, shit and fuck their way across the landscape like a rolling orgy of fat in the case of much of the Western world. More telecommuting and less 9 to 5 jobs go a long way from overburdening the sewer systems with those 2 venti latte/triple stack/10 oz of fried potato poos some of us have when we have 15 minutes 3 times a day to shovel food in our face.

Re:Frozen?

[MrNaz]

The correct possessive form is "family's".

Apparently grammar isn't taught in Empire Building 101 any more.

Re:Frozen?

[DriedClexler]

Yes, people are sent to fight pointless wars in the false belief that doing so is necessary to secure access to oil. Doesn't mean those lives are a COST of oil, just a cost of stupidity. Homer Simpson pours coffee grounds around his house to protect it from stampeding elephants; that doesn't mean that his purchases of coffee grounds are a subsidy to our elephant-free lifestyle.

Dock off the taxes oil companies pay and the dubiousness of the alleged subsidies (non-oil-using cars are road-compatible; all transportation systems have infrastructure costs), and no net tax money goes to oil.

Modern catalytic converters make gasoline usage have little impact on the breathability of the air. Coal, you have a case; 3rd world countries, you have a case; gasoline, you don't. Burning oil does release GHGs, but slivers of a percent of the atmosphere being CO2 does not make it "unbreathable".

Please stop repeating the "oil is subsidized with lives and money" Big Lie.

Re:Frozen?

[The End Of Days]

You sure do have a hard-on about it.

Re:Frozen?

[dave87656]

It's time to get active. Get in your hummer and drive directly to your representative stopping only for gas and let him know that those damn hippies are squeezing the poor people by pushing for alternate energy sources. Think of the cost and the waste of time.

Sheesh, let's give those oil companies a break. They've had to deal with alot lately. The government just yanked their subsidies right out from underneath them. Now they have to pay more taxes just because they made a few billion in pure profits. Cmon, folks, there are alot of countries who have bigger budgets than the oil company profit margins. 40 billion just doesn't get you to first base anymore.

And don't get me started on those senior citizens who have to choose between eating or heating their home. It's a well known fact that we don't need as much food when we're older.

And those pesky endangered species. I say, if they can't take the heat, then they shouldn't be on the planet in the first place. A risk to our food supply, you say? Ha! Beer's safe, isn't it?

Re:Frozen?

[TheRaven64]

Actually, it was worse than that. There was a small group of protesters, but they didn't even come from or live in the area, and they were backed by a big environmental charity and so had enough money to keep dragging things through court.

Re:Frozen?

[TheRaven64]

The issue is that there are a lot of people who work to the south of the town but live to the north, and (before the bridge was built) the only route between the two was through the centre of the town. This wasn't a direct route for most of them, and ended up funnelling a lot of traffic into small roads which were never designed for it (or for anything - the town is several hundred years old and the roads in the middle date back to when it was a village).

If you replaced every car with a perfect electrical vehicle which used no power when stationary, then you would still be creating more pollution because the downstream bridge was a more direct route and so took less energy.

Obviously, switching everyone to electric vehicles is not a short term solution, and the bridge does a lot to mitigate the problem in the short term until it is possible to do so. Unless you think the correct solution is a forced migration of thousands of families in the bottom income bracket to live closer to where they work (and forced purchase of houses for them to live in, since most of them would not be able to afford rent in that area due to large numbers of people buying houses as second homes and driving the prices up).

Re:Frozen?

[chuchmo]

You know what shows a lack of compassion? PETA kills animals. What excuse is there for killing thousands of animals - over 80% of those they take in? They can't all be critically injured or diseased. What kind of sick, twisted morality is that? In my opinion, given the information, this is not Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Re:Frozen?

[drinkypoo]

Burning oil does release GHGs, but slivers of a percent of the atmosphere being CO2 does not make it "unbreathable".

When the acidification of the ocean due to rising CO2 levels causes massive algae dieoffs, you're going to be singing a different tune.

Re:Frozen?

[jacquesm]

no, I didn't mean it quite that way, what I meant was that every action will cause people to try to 'rebalance' the situation, but like a pendulum that you try to push back to the starting position it will always overshoot the center and end up in a new extreme. Depending on the size of the push the correction may cause things to get worse.

I'm with you on life surviving though, now let's hope H. Sapiens is amongst the survivors...

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

You must be new around here (tm).

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

Yep, 80%. That's about par for animal shelters in the U.S. Millions of animals get euthanized every year.

And yes, most of them are healthy. That still leaves the problem of where they're supposed to live. Do you know a way to place that many animals with people who will care for them? Or can you come up with the money for to house and feed them?

I don't agree with the way PETA approaches the animal overpopulation problem, but at least they're trying to do something. What have you done?

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

Excuse me, did you say something?

Re:Frozen?

[chuchmo]

No, that's not about par. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. Why does PETA have rates of over 90% in the last two years?

Yeah, I know a way to place animals in homes - make an attempt to place animals in homes. Take a look back at my first link, the 2006 line. Out of over 3000 animals, 12 were adopted. Twelve. The year prior, 2005, showed that 146 were adopted. What changed in the course of one year?

What have I done? I certainly haven't killed any animals. Oh yeah - my Jack Russell, Rogue, says hi.

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

Read that Humane Society survey a little more carefully. It doesn't say "56% of dogs and 71% of cats are euthanized." It says those figure were reported by 100 animal shelters that answered the survey. That's not a lot: 2 per state. I don't know how many animals shelters there are, but animal control is usually a county function, and there are 30,000 counties in the U.S. Some small counties probably have joint operations, so lets say 20,000 shelters. So you have a sample that's self-selected (and you can bet shelters that were ashamed of their kill rate didn't answer the survey) and constitutes 0.5% of all the shelters in the country.

So, that highly unscientific sample has 25% of shelter animals adopted. The PETA shelter claims 12%. That's proof that they're not trying to place animals. Right.

As for this:

Take a look back at my first link, the 2006 line. Out of over 3000 animals, 12 were adopted. Twelve. The year prior, 2005, showed that 146 were adopted. What changed in the course of one year?

Gee, I dunno. Neither do you. Did you happen to notice that at the same time their adoption rate went down, their transfer-out rate went up? Their overall statistics do suck for the last three years (relatively speaking, since all the statistics we're arguing about are pretty nauseating), but there are other explanations besides an anti-animal jihad. Budgets cutbacks? Inept management? Possibly PETA is just screwing up (I never said they were smart), but the dark conspiracy petakillsanimals.org is ranting about is imaginary.

Having dispensed with your statistical fallacies, let's look at your moral fallacy:

What have I done? I certainly haven't killed any animals.

So, your claim to moral superiority is based on what you haven't done. You haven't killed any animals. So you're a moral step ahead of anybody who's ever worked in an animals shelter. Right.

The people who run the PETA shelter maybe, maybe are doing a lousy job of placing animals for adoption. You haven't proven that they have, but lets just say they are. They still managed to place 3,000 animals over 10 years. How many have you placed? What have you done except obtain a fancy dog? Which, I'm guessing, you got from a breeder, not a shelter.

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

Gad, did I say 30,000 counties? Try 3,000. So maybe 1 in 20 shelters responded. That's a better size sample than I said, but it's still self selected.

Re:Frozen?

[znerk]

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.

Really? Show me one.

Great, you've chosen a concept car due to be rolled out *maybe* in 2010. try again.

No, that one costs US$40,000.00 - that's nearly two years' salary (nevermind food, rent, insurance, etc) for anyone I know on a first-name basis. Sorry, but food comes first.

Nope, that one there isn't available in the US. Besides, it wouldn't be allowed on the interstate anyway, it only does 30mph.

Show me a fully-electric vehicle that I can purchase today, for less than US$25,000, that is legal to drive on the interstate (in other words, not restricted to roads with 35mph speed limits because it isn't allowed to go faster than 25mph due to government-imposed safety constraints).

Yeah, I thought not.

I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong. I currently drive a Chrysler PT Cruiser, because it is the closest I could find to what I'm looking for. No, it doesn't get great mileage, but it gets better mileage than any other light truck I could find, with the added benefit of a roof. (I also need the ability to carry a Dell server, in its box, as well as a Lexmark laser printer - also in its box.) My 45mph+ requirement is based on the idea that to go from my house to anywhere else, I have to travel on a 45mph road, or on the interstate. This is not legal in an NEV, as safety regulations prohibit them from travelling on roads with speed limits greater than 35mph. This is because they are limited (with a governor, not paperwork or physics) to 25mph in the US.

Show me an all-electric vehicle that conforms to the above requirements, and I'll cheerfully buy it. Matter of fact, show me an all-electric commuter vehicle (even just a one or two passenger, no cargo room model), that is allowed on a 45mph road, at a reasonable price (less than US$25,000) and I'll buy it on the spot (assuming there's no other hoop-jumping involved). I can afford to pay the note for two vehicles, if one of them doesn't use gas and the other is only used for out-of-town trips or cargo hauling. I'll even sweeten the deal. Show me that vehicle, and I'll buy it, then give you a modest finder's fee.

Unfortunately, I'm expecting you to do 5 minutes or so of googling, realise you're completely and utterly out of your depth (or out of touch with reality), then run off with your tail between your legs.

Please, prove me wrong. I can't afford to keep driving a vehicle that gets less than 30 miles to the gallon.

Re:Frozen?

[znerk]

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

Please read the linked article before posting. It helps you not look like an idiot.

The problem being exposed is that the organization supposedly dedicated to protecting animals is really just a bunch of profiteering hatemongers. I think this supports the "environmentalists are a bunch of hypocrites" theories quite nicely.

I have yet to see an environmentalist or animal rights activist whose shoes were not made of processed animal and/or petroleum products. I have yet to see an environmentalist who walked everywhere they went because gasoline and combustion engines are bad for the environment. I have yet to see an outspoken environmentalist whose true goal was the preservation or continuance of life, rather than just having a soap-box to stand on.

Class dismissed.

Re:Frozen?

[fm6]

I could argue with every point you're trying to make. But since you've already made up your mind that I'm stupid and hypocritical, there seems to be little point.

But be warned: demonizing people you disagree with is sort of going out of fashion. Nowadays people expect you to make actual arguments.

Re:Frozen?

[znerk]

Oh, no! Please do continue the discussion. My mind is very rarely completely set on any given topic, and I welcome the opportunity to debate these points. Where did I say you were stupid and hypocritical?

I wasn't attempting to demonize anyone, merely pointing out my own personal experiences (which I then supported with (admittedly anecdotal) evidence. If you have your own anecdotes, feel free to share.

Of course, arguing about whether environmentalists and animal rights activists are hypocrites during a discussion of US solar plant applications might get us modded off-topic, but hey, this is Slashdot!

Government listening to the people??

[blahbooboo]

My god, what next!? Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

Yes, it's from ... Ghostbusters!

Re:Government listening to the people??

[Marc Desrochers]

Applications were unfrozen. This doesn't mean anything more that shutting up all those who complained. Apply all you want, doesn't mean your application is going anywhere.

Continue Building!

[Wandering Wombat]

We'll just figure out what the effects are after we're hooked up to your juice.

Re:Continue Building!

[InlawBiker]

Indeed. And what about the prospect of offshore drilling for solar power? How many seagulls and fish will it displace or kill? I know it's next on the BU$H Agenda, don't try to pretend otherwise!

Re:Continue Building!

[znu]

The environmental impact of large-scale solar deployment is almost certainly less than that of most conventional power generation mechanisms. So continuing on the way we're going while we wait for some long study of the impact of solar doesn't seem very clever. In fact, it insisting that we wait on such studies seems like a pretty transparent ploy to protect existing power generation industry from the market forces that might otherwise undermine it.

Re:Continue Building!

[gunnk]

Chance that solar power installations may do harm to the environment: probably quite low, but non-zero.
Chance that a coal-fired power plant does significant harm to the environment: 100%

If we can displace some power sources that we KNOW have big negatives with some we're pretty sure won't, then yeah: let's build now and watch for any unexpected consequences as we go forward.

Re:Continue Building!

[Wandering Wombat]

How far do you have to drill to find solar energy?

Yes, yes, oil is technically solar energy, but still...

Re:Continue Building!

[Wandering Wombat]

They didn't stop any EXISTING projects, which total some $2 billion, but merely froze all NEW applications. They're just letting the unfettered Zerg rush of solar-available land continue without giving anyone a chance to think about it.

Re:Continue Building!

[mosb1000]

"The environmental impact of large-scale solar deployment is almost certainly less than that of most conventional power generation mechanisms."

No, any large structure will hurt the environment. Plus there is the issue of chemicals used for maintenance, or noise from the power generation. The endangered species act and the environmental protection act can be surprisingly unforgiving if you fail to do the proper research beforehand.

Better to ask forgiveness though, right? The lawsuits will be along shortly.

Re:Continue Building!

[sillybilly]

I think their reason is not environmental, but to quell the hype, and the waste of money and resources. You really have to be watching your money like a hawk. Solar is like the only viable renewable energy for the long run - wind is better, but only certain places have sufficient wind/can tolerate huge height towers -, but you can make some really bad mistakes by spending too much. Like the military did by buying a 100 million dollar solar plant, that should have cost 10 million if profitability is anywhere in sight. Just because you can get power from solar, there is still a price you should spend, and not overpay 10-100x.

Re:Continue Building!

[BugZRevengE]

12,756.32 kilometers

Re:Continue Building!

[WindBourne]

the fact that we already have a number of these in place for nearly 50 years makes me think that we have very little to worry about.

no i was wrong :(

[blahbooboo]

Never mind I was wrong. It was government listening to the solar lobby! Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:no i was wrong :(

[Qzukk]

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:no i was wrong :(

[Gat0r30y]

Nothing, but just as with the oil and gas companies, it is much less expensive to lease land from the BLM. Also, you can get a lease on a vast expanse of land which you might not be able to buy contiguously through other channels.

Re:no i was wrong :(

[QuantumRiff]

In my county in OR, 60% of the land is Public owned. Some is state (although not much) most is forest service, and BLM. Makes it real fun when you try to pay for infrastructure when 60% of your land doesn't pay taxes.. If you need more than a dozen acres, you either buy out a ranch, and figure out how to get it rezoned (and the tree huggers coming down from PDX to protest it, even though its much better for the environment that Cattle farming) or, you try to lease some land from the FED's. Either way, you have to deal with the fed's, because of water restrictions, access, building any kind of structures within a certain amount of distance from their land, routing power distribution lines, etc..

Re:no i was wrong :(

[drinkypoo]

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?

More proof of global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Some are even predicting U.S. solar plant applications could be ice free by as early as this summer.

Re:More proof of global warming

[MJMullinII]

HOG WASH!

They haven't been ice free since records have been kept (mid 70s') so I REFUSE to believe they will EVER be approved!

Don't review it!

[nine-times]

Solar power sounds great and is very trendy. Why evaluate the possible consequences for our actions when we can plow ahead blindly? Going ahead with energy policy without considering the environmental effects has worked well for us so far!

Besides, being in favor of solar power helps you score with hippie chicks.

Re:Don't review it!

[StaticEngine]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but hippie chicks are a pain in the ass. They don't shave their body hair, they're overly concerned with what direction they're facing when making out so they can "harness the natural energy of Gaia", and they think all technology pollutes their auras.

What you want is to score with a hot female electrical engineer, because there's usually a hellion lurking beneath the rose-rimmed glasses and the tight labcoat.

Re:Don't review it!

[d34thm0nk3y]

Solar power sounds great and is very trendy. Why evaluate the possible consequences for our actions when we can plow ahead blindly? Going ahead with energy policy without considering the environmental effects has worked well for us so far!

How dare they approve zero projects before the study is complete!

Re:Don't review it!

[GroeFaZ]

hippie chicks are a pain in the ass

TMI TMI TMI

Re:Don't review it!

[StreetStealth]

there's usually a hellion lurking beneath the rose-rimmed glasses and the tight labcoat.

Wait a second, are you the author of those electrical engineering romance paperbacks I've been reading?

Re:Don't review it!

[Thelasko]

Yeah, but those hippie chicks are so fit from eating vegan food and walking everywhere.

Re:Don't review it!

[Gat0r30y]

hot female electrical engineer

you sir have clearly not been to the engineering building on a college campus. The hot female EE you speak of is a mythical creature, like bigfoot, or a unicorn.

Re:Don't review it!

[LandDolphin]

Don't know if you've looked around, but not all Vegans are fit. There are overweight & underweight vegans too.

Re:Don't review it!

[CrackedButter]

So you've dated my ex as well?

Re:Don't review it!

[techpawn]

The hot female EE you speak of is a mythical creature, like bigfoot, or a unicorn.

Or a giraffe or the puma! They just don't exist except in paperback books of fantasy!

Re:Don't review it!

[Thelasko]

The hot female EE you speak of is a mythical creature, like bigfoot, or a unicorn.

Oh, they exist, I've seen them with my own eyes. They've just been hunted to the edge of extinction.

Re:Don't review it!

[sm62704]

Besides, being in favor of solar power helps you score with hippie chicks.

Dude, most hippie chicks are older than me, and I'm a geezer. OTOH twenty bucks will get you laid by a crackwhore. Just don't let her in your house!

Hookers beat hippie chicks hands down.

Re:Don't review it!

[BlueParrot]

Maybe where you live. I study in Sweden however... :-)

Re:Don't review it!

[ErikZ]

More rare than that.

Like the offspring of Bigfoot and a Unicorn.

Re:Don't review it!

[sexybomber]

Besides, being in favor of solar power helps you score with hippie chicks.

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Don't review it!

[BigDaddyOttawa]

or the puma.

Re:Don't review it!

[geekoid]

"Oh, they exist, I've seen them with my own eyes. "

well I have banged them with my own penis, top that!

Re:Don't review it!

[Alarindris]

So they do exist then?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/06/11/unicorn-deer-italy.html

Re:Don't review it!

[FleaPlus]

Wait a second, are you the author of those electrical engineering romance paperbacks I've been reading?

Links please...

Re:Don't review it!

[QuantumRiff]

Which doesn't make any sense, since when you do see one, they are always hounded by a dozen geeks who want to help them with their homework and studying.

Re:Don't review it!

[drinkypoo]

I don't have any humorous anecdotes about vegan women but I do have a fun story about a resident of the local psuedohippie hot springs resort who is a frail little vegan. He was attacked by three tom turkeys who successfully knocked him to the ground. He had to be rescued. Guess he smelled like a tasty vegetable...

Don't let this happen to you - eat a steak tonight.

Re:Don't review it!

[dreamchaser]

My wife works in the EE department at a major university. Trust me, a few of her students have been hot girls. Smart too!

Re:Don't review it!

[jheath314]

Really? I guess I just don't know too many vegans, and tend not to ask obese people "what have you been eating?" Nevertheless, all of the vegans I *do* know have tended to range from "somewhat skinny" to "nightmarish-walking-skeleton skinny".

Re:Don't review it!

[MJMullinII]

AND I JUST SAW BIGFOOT!!!

There truly IS hope for us all!

Re:Don't review it!

[MJMullinII]

OH! I see, you would let them go around KILLING all our deserts by blocking their precious sunlight, but I'M the biggest ass in the WORLD for wanting to build Nuclear Power Plants there?

Some people...

Re:Don't review it!

[MJMullinII]

You're joking, however I have always wondered about the Coal operators.

Several years ago when electric cars were starting to take off in California (for their demographic, anyway) people wanted to expand public charging systems to allow for quicker charges on the road.

Several dozen groups came out against it, all spewing the same shit about the "effects" of burning more coal to produce more electricity and the HORRORS THAT WOULD CAUSE!!!

99.99% of them were later tracked back to Big Oil Lobyying firms who cared less about Coal's effects on the environment and a lot about the prospect of Oil loosing it's monopoly status as a automobile energy source.

I always wondered by Big Coal didn't swing back.

If I have been a Coal lobbyist, I would have hired Karl Rove to put those 'Oiall boys' in their place for daring to tangle with 'Big Coal'

Before it was over, I would have had the public convinced that every gallon of gas was literally made of baby puppies/kittens.

That might very well have turned the tide in favor of electric vehicles.

Re:Don't review it!

[LynnwoodRooster]

Banging pictures don't count.

Re:Don't review it!

[Eivind]

Nah. They exist, they're just rare. Infact there's several of them right here. Hi Marianne ! Hi Sini ! Hi Nadine ! Hi Miriam !

If you don't know them -- your loss. :-)

Okay, so not all Electrical Engineering. Marianne is an industrial engineer, Sini is a Doctor of Comp.Sci, Nadine has a bachelor (I think, migth be master) also from Comp.Sci but Miriam is an honest-to good electrical engineer, working on improving big-ass electrical generators for a hydroelectric powerplant here in Norway.

Due to an abundance of idiots though, 3 of them post under gender-neutral nicknames, I can't blame them. (for similar reasons, forget about pics or any more spesifics, if they want to out themselves they can do it themselves, I won't.)

Re:Don't review it!

[WindBourne]

Hmmmm. A number of these plants have been around for up to 50 years. Why the concern at just this time? And what concern do you have about it?

Re:Don't review it!

[StreetStealth]

I don't know what to say now that parent has been modded interesting...

Hmm...

[lockwesmonster]

I wonder if anyone actually cried over this.

Solar plants are dangerous!

[flyingfsck]

They will kill all natural plant life, absorb all available sunlight, douse the planet with darkness, freeze up the North Pole, stop the North Atlantic Conveyor, interfere with the mating rituals of rhesus monkeys and cause the whales to change their tunes. It is the end of the world as we know it!

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just great. It starts with an earthquake. Maybe some birds and snakes or an aeroplane.

Lenny Bruce is not afraid.

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[greenguy]

I can't believe you left out the biggest problem of all: what to do with all that solar waste.

I know I sure as heck don't want a bunch of depleted sunlight in my backyard!

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[Smidge204]

Last summer for the most part, and there are some projections that it will melt completely by the end of this summer.

=Smidge=

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[sm62704]

Those plants that live on the sun are damned HOT!

I looked up solar power in the uncyclopedia. I was going to quote it but WTF, I can't be bothered.

It is the end of the world as we know it!

And REM feels fine.

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[roaddemon]

That's one way to end global warming.

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[philspear]

This plan is particularly dangerous when you consider we're not entirely sure how the sun works! Some reports indicate it may be powered by nuclear reactions and it MAY release high amounts of radiation!

We're considering using this in our backyards?!? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[ihatethetv]

Maybe we can pack it into a spaceship and dispose of it, by sending it the only obvious place...the sun.

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[QuantumRiff]

So true.. so many hippies forget that solar power is the resultant product of a very large nuclear reaction...

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[Spy der Mann]

They will kill all natural plant life, absorb all available sunlight, douse the planet with darkness, freeze up the North Pole, stop the North Atlantic Conveyor, interfere with the mating rituals of rhesus monkeys and cause the whales to change their tunes. It is the end of the world as we know it!

I feel fine...

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[drew]

Crap. And all this time, I thought he said "snakes on an aeroplane."

Re:Solar plants are dangerous!

[MJMullinII]

This plan is particularly dangerous when you consider we're not entirely sure how the sun works! Some reports indicate it may be powered by nuclear reactions and it MAY release high amounts of radiation!

We're considering using this in our backyards?!? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I would just like to point out that my radiation is safely contained in my septic tank.

No Solar Projects Approved

[Alcimedes]

I wonder if the BLM has approved any oil wells on BLM land......

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[Mike Buddha]

Gosh, you could actually find out, instead of posting vague, unsubstantiated rumors on the Internet. What am I thinking? This is Slashdot! Mod him up!

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[Alcimedes]

I looked, but could only find old articles that ruled in favor of the oil/gas company drilling on Native American land for oil.

If you have more recent ones I'm all ears. :p

"Land Management Bureau, rejecting appeal by 10 American Indian tribes and environmentalists, rules Anschutz Exploration Corp may drill exploratory oil well in southern Montana near ancient rock art site Indians consider sacred
May 23, 2001"

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[Knara]

Sounds a little bit more like it wasn't on Native American land, but instead was non-sovereign land where they had some site they considered sacred.

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[tthomas48]

From the BLM web page:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas.html

It wasn't too hard to find. Being on the main blm web page and all. To answer the question, the BLM does have quite an investment in selling leases for exploiting natural resources. Although, it doesn't explain why they wouldn't be interested in selling leases to exploit sunlight. Of course, we might find out that this was a directive from someone higher up in the administration.

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[jguthrie]

On the other hand, we might find out that environmental impact studies were completed on all those oil and gas wells before the leases were granted. Those granted in the last 30 years, at least. Why should solar industry be exempt from the requirement to have environmental impact studies done?

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[tthomas48]

They're still going to do the studies, and from what I'm seeing they're not planning on approving any of the leases until that study is done:

FTA:
"The BLM in 2006 completed a similar study of the effects of wind farm development in the Midwest. The agency did not, however, halt applications during that process, which began in 2003. Resseguie said that was because wind resources were geographically dispersed and there were no multiple applications for any single location, as there are in California for solar plants."

So it sounds like they were just trying to close the queue so it wouldn't get clogged up while they waited on the results of the survey. It doesn't appear to in any way impact when they will start approving leases.

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[NiceGeek]

when's the last time you heard of a serious sunlight spill?

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[Penguinisto]

Probably, because it's easier and less impactful (assuming everything works right) to park a well on a tiny spot within a huge tract, than it is to park massive banks of solar collecting/reflecting structures all over the same place.

Not saying that an oil well can't create a large bit of pollution when/if something goes drastically wrong, but the footprint is probably going to be a lot smaller, will require less material to be dragged in and set up, less roads to be built for maintenance, etc.

Before you say it, I have nothing against solar power per se, but it does make sense to consider that it likely requires more land, materials, and maintenance to set up and operate a solar plant than it would to maintain a couple of wells and (possibly) a pipeline or two.

/P

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[geekoid]

Have you seen a solar farm? quite a lot of equipment, and acreage.

Some of the solar equipment is toxic.

No one is saying it's as bad as oil can be, but there will be impact. How much? well that's what the study is for.

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[Socguy]

You haven't spent much time in Alberta. The entire Provence is carved into a grid of cut-lines and oilfield service roads. Then there's the Tar Sands which hold the dubious promise to become a crater the size of Florida and, as of 2007, is home to the worlds largest dam by volume, the Syncrude Tailings Dam @ 706,320cu yards and growing in order to hold back the voluminous toxic waste produced.

Take the million acres and let the rest return to normal.

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[mangu]

when's the last time you heard of a serious sunlight spill?

How about a wikipedia article?

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[NiceGeek]

Well, unless people start lying on top of the panels, I don't see this as being a serious problem.

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[MadMidnightBomber]

Can't we turn Florida into a crater the size of Florida?

Re:No Solar Projects Approved

[BASH guy]

I wonder if the BLM has approved any oil wells on BLM land......

Maybe the Security czar will get the president to approve the solar projects without review like the famous fence along the border.

Good!

[MBC1977]

Maybe, just maybe we can begin to harness some clean energy into wider usage.

Re:Good!

[mapsjanhere]

We're so lucky that the solar cells can now be grown on trees, and don't come out of some high energy use chemical process anymore. That's finally really clean energy.

Re:Good!

[mapsjanhere]

Sorry when the facts bother you, but solar only recently made it past the "break even" point in regards to energy produced over energy put in during production. It's like "clean" electric cars, they are pollution free on the road, the pollution has just been moved to power plant.
Now, a nuclear plant however ...

Re:Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Good!

[geekoid]

Yes, but centralized waste by products can be better managed then millions of tail pipes.

"Now, a nuclear plant however ..."
Yes, there is no energy cost or dangerous product their~
I am pro-nuclear, but let's not kid ourselves here.

Finally, look into solar thermal plants. Very clean to build and maintain. Compared to everything else.

Re:Good!

[drinkypoo]

Sorry when the facts bother you, but solar only recently made it past the "break even" point in regards to energy produced over energy put in during production.

Today on slashdot, lying liars and the lies they tell.

The truth is that we have known for over thirty years that Solar Cells recoup the energy invested in their production in under seven years and may actually do it in less than one year.

Now, a nuclear plant however ...

...could be safe and efficient, but none of the designs we are using now are particularly deserving of either description (although they are not spectacularly unsafe and are probably safer than many of the coal and oil plants operating in the USA.) And the plants which have been proposed to be built any time in the near future are just more of the same shit.

We would need to start using breeder reactors to reprocess nuclear fuel in order to make building more nuclear make any kind of sense. This is not impossible.

On the issue of solar passing the break even point, however, you are like Bush talking about WMDs in Iraq. Full of fucking shit and with no possible defense other than being misled. Too bad you got modded up (obviously by big oil! heh heh)

Re:Good!

[mosb1000]

" I think you'll find an array of mirrors a bit cheaper than a nuclear containment vessel" Not likely. Consider the size difference.

Re:Good!

[FinalMidnight]

There are also alternate technologies for Photo Voltaic Cells which require a lot less energy to make. These include (but are not limited to):

• Cells made by Vapor Deposition and
• Dye-sensitized Solar Cells

Both these techniques are cheaper and will repay investment a much faster than the traditional silicon wafer PV cell. While they may not match the very impressive 31.25% efficency of a Solar Thermal system, they will undoubtedly get better in the future.

The change from a centralized power generation system to a decentralized power generation system is undoubtedly going to break lots of business models. The Powers-That-Be have a lot of interest in keeping the status quo exactly the way it is. They are (quite rightly) nervous about Joe Sixpack discovering that he can put a wind turbine and two solar thermal reflectors on the roof of their house and suddenly make the power company a lot less profitable. Peak-Rate Power is the most profitable kind, and every watt reduced is money from their bottom line.

As this technology gets cheaper and more affordable, the reasons not to have power generation distributed and closer to the point of use vanish. The oil company loses demand (exponentially reducing the price of their product) and the power company's infrastructure monopoly suddenly becomes a whole lot less valuable.

This upcoming technology shift is going to be similar in scale to the replacement of million-dollar record pressing plants with $80 CD-R drives, and we all know how long that is taking to shake out.

Re:Good!

[drinkypoo]

There are many different types of breeder reactor. The type we are discussing is relatively safe (processing nuclear waste is somewhat more dangerous than, say, recycling plastic soda bottles) and more importantly is not useful for producing weapons-grade material.

Germany has them

[mschuyler]

While we whine about 'environmental considerations' of grabbing free energy from the sun, other countries are actually doing something about it. I was just in Germany where solar cell farms have been built in many places along the autobahns. Further, there are huge windmills everywhere (turning VERY slowly--Any bird which hits one of these is not paying attention. In France they've gone whole-hog nuke for electricity. There isn't a project alive that we can't make take ten times longer and make ten times the cost over our 'concerns.'

Re:Germany has them

[plasmacutter]

Further, there are huge windmills everywhere (turning VERY slowly--Any bird which hits one of these is not paying attention.

In germany they don't have stills hidden every 5 feet in the countryside. We can't help it if our birds are a bit "slower" in the head because of that! Someone please think of the birds?

Re:Germany has them

[mapsjanhere]

I guess you weren't in Germany more towards the end of the year, when all those windmills are turned off. The only reason they have windmills is that they have government subsidized guaranteed prizes for the electricity they produce. When they have generated their year's quota, they are turned off to save on maintenance cost. Was really funny the last time I went there; Dec. 30, and all was still. January 1st comes around, and what a view of spinning activity.

Re:Germany has them

[Anonymous Coward]

As a german, I'll have to say I've never heard about any such quotas. All there is is a guaranteed price at which the electricity companies have to buy electricity from solar, wind etc. sources. Who would set the quotas, and who would get how much anyway? Would the owner of 100 small windmills get 100 times the quota the owner of 1 windmill gets? What about the guy in the windy north, does he get the same as the owner of a windmill in a not as windy part of the country? Would everybody elses quota be reduced if a large windfarm goes online?
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:Germany has them

[mapsjanhere]

Auf Deutsch dann:

Nach einer Analyse der gewerkschaftsnahen Hans-BÃckler-Stiftung beim liegt alleine der Unterschied zwischen Marktpreis und Zwangsabnahmepreis fur eine 1,2 Megawatt Windenergieanlage bei ca. 130.000 Euro pro Jahr.

The maximum quota is there exactly for the reason you mentioned, to not give the guys on the coast all the advantages.

Re:Germany has them

[NiKem]

There is no maximum quota system in Germany but a minimum price is set for which the generated electricity has to be bought by the electric utility firms. See in german here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz

Power times two

[davidwr]

Politics and energy, that's power twice over.

i posted this two weeks ago with a better headlin

[davejenkins]

funny thing-- i predicted this is almost exactly in the first thread-- but got modded down as 'flamebait'.

eat my photons.

I blame the fact...

[Thelasko]

this was mostly misreported by news agencies. They made it sound like nobody could build solar power plants, when it only applied to "federally managed land."

Re:I blame the fact...

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to see just HOW MUCH BLM land exists here in the Southwest. It's the vast majority of land where solar could be a viable enterprise. The amount of private land vs government-land (not withstanding Indian reservations, which I suppose could be argued as casino/government land) vastly outstrips private land holdings.

This is a big deal, because bush is shutting off a huge reserve of prime solar generating real estate on BLM land. I suspect if oil was found on BLM land there would be a cry for getting guvamint out of the land business.

Re:I blame the fact...

[Thelasko]

I suspect if oil was found on BLM land there would be a cry for getting guvamint(sic) out of the land business.

Yeah, because there's no controversy over drilling on federal land.

Re:I blame the fact...

[Manfre]

From what I've read, oil companies are already leasing BLM land. Many times more oil/gas applications have been submitted/accepted without as thorough an environmental impact study. It's okay, I'm sure Mexico will gladly sell us solar power in a few decades.

Wow, it makes sense (Crimson Avenger, bow)

[John Jamieson]

This cannot happen, it seems to make sense!

Here is something I have never said before... Crimson Avenger eat crow! Ya, you got the mod points, but I got the Government to take my side! How is that for power! ;)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=597459&cid=23968419

Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[Plazmid]

Birds instantly cooked in mid air due to highly focused sunlight.

Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[gclef]

So, it'll give me light, heat, *and* dinner? Tell me again why this is bad...

Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[Gerafix]

And by detrimental environmental effect you mean deliciously 'green' cooking effect, right?

Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[mapsjanhere]

Is anyone still building those? I know the French had a focused beam driven generator years ago, but it went belly up due to corrosion (they were using molten salt as primary liquid).

Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[Sponge Bath]

This could be used to solve the UT Austin grackle problem *and* generate energy.
Killing two birds with one stone.

Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[Shotgun]

Beam. Two birds with one beam.

Sheesh!! Slashdotters.

Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects...

[CptNerd]

Don't look for the mote in the other's eye when you have a beam in your own. Especially one of those beams. You wouldn't be able to see anything, much less a mote.

FFS just go nuclear

[RiotingPacifist]

while renewable energy is a good long term goal, going nuclear would/does work today [see France] and the excess power allows you to do interesting things when the grid is not using it all [see CERN]. Now that's not to say there aren't issues, but they are known issues and as long as you don't try doing anything stupid [see Chernobyl] and stick to regulations its >99.999% safe.

and while they're at it perhaps they could invest the money needed to finally get fission working too. all this 'being green' is needed while were burning coal, but once we go nuclear we can throw energy about for supercomputers/labs/cars/etc

Re:FFS just go nuclear

[sm62704]

and while they're at it perhaps they could invest the money needed to finally get fission working too.

I think you mean "fusion". Fission is what the present nuclear plants use. As to fusion, I'm hopeful yet skeptical, as when I was a kid fission (nuclear power) was going to make electricity "too cheap to meter".

Re:FFS just go nuclear

[geekoid]

Solar thermal works ad is cost effective, and doesn't require the materials nuclear power needs to operate. Materials that are also in dwindling supply.

SO Nuclear is a temporary solution as well. We should build some for base load, but everything else should be solar thermal.
If you are thinking or replying with a snarky comment about them only working during the day, I suggest you look it up and find out why that isn't true.

Re:FFS just go nuclear

[cjsm]

Fusion is the energy source of the future, and always will be.

New Mexico Utilities RFP for New Solar Project

[mls]

In the same week, a group of New Mexico utilities have announced a RFP for a new solar project. This is interesting since a significant amount of land in rural New Mexico is Federally controlled, either by the BLM or military.

Builders or speculators?

[clovis]

I have to wonder how many of the corporations/people who are asking for permits actually have the intent (and ability) to build solar array farms, or are they just hoping to grab the land rights now so that they can hold it hostage and sub-lease it later to others?

Re:Builders or speculators?

[rrkap]

California has a mandate that 20% of its power must come from renewables (not including large hydropower plants) by 2012 and higher targets shortly after. The only cost-effective way to meet this requirement is by building massive thermal solar plants very quickly. Lots of the best land for such plants is controlled by the Federal government in one form or another. There are something like 10 500 MW solar farms planned for construction in in various parts of the Mojave desert over the next decade. So, the demand is real.

Re:Builders or speculators?

[TheSync]

California has a mandate that 20% of its power must come from renewables ...The only cost-effective way to meet this requirement is by building massive thermal solar plants very quickly

There are already several wind farms in California that produce peak on the order of 500 MW. Peak power use by California is 50 GW, so 20% is 10 GW, so all you need is to build 20 large wind farms of current design. Or a farm like San Gorgonio pass already has something like 4,000 wind generators of various sizes, if you replaced them with 3MW class turbines you'd get 12 GW from that farm alone...

Southern California Edison is supposed to ramp Tehachapi up to 1.5 GW in the near future (this site has 5,000 wind generators...Altamont Pass has 6,000).

Re:Builders or speculators?

[rrkap]

The problem with wind power in California is that you don't get peak power from your turbines during periods of peak demand. In addition, there is a lot of time that your 500 MW wind farm spends most of the time with its turbines sitting still, so you're looking at needing a hell of a lot more capacity from your wind farms than you would expect from comparing peak output to peak demand. Also, you can't simply replace the turbines in the California wind farms with larger ones on a one for one basis because they are much more closely spaced than is possible with modern turbines (not that replacing them isn't a good idea, just it isn't as simple as you think). Wind is probably a part of California's electricity future, but thermal solar is looking cheaper, more useful and quicker to install.

Re:Builders or speculators?

[TheSync]

The problem with wind power in California is that you don't get peak power from your turbines during periods of peak demand.

Indeed...is the "20% renewable" law mean peak, base, or average power?

I suggest the use of renewable nuclear fission power. Every time there is a supernova, fissionable uranium gets renewed!

Re:Builders or speculators?

[rrkap]

I was being loose with my terms. It is 20% of the electrical energy sold by California utilities has to be generated by renewables excluding large hydro.

ok

[GregNorc]

Someone give me some possible downsides to solar energy. I'm not being sarcastic - I've never heard this line of thought that solar energy is bad for the environment and would like to hear the reasoning behind it.

Re:ok

[Lohrno]

Some downsides - You have to clean solar panels regularly, and they're not very efficient yet. You have to keep them pointed directly at the sun as well. It takes a little while to recover the investment, since they're pricey for what they deliver. Far be it from me to claim to be knowledgable about these things, but it seems to me the maintanance for wind turbines is far greater than solar panels though. With those, you need to service the motors and such.

Re:ok

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that the plant and animal life near/under these panels is no longer getting the sunlight needed/required. Yes you could convert most of Arizona into a solar farm if the environmentalists can deal with killing off certain species that depend on the sunlight here. You could also cover most of Nebraska except for that pesky food production we would loose by converting crop fields to solar fields.

Re:ok

[gclef]

Solar cells are still made from industrial chemical processes, so they're not necessarily very land-fill friendly (obviously, this depends on the chemical makeup of the cell)....and yes, the cells will wear out and require replacement.

Also, as a joker pointed out earlier, since they don't work at night, you need batteries...our battery technology is also fairly heavy on the heavy metals right now. These also wear out, often faster than the cells do.

In the case that the BLM are talking about, there are a number of interesting possibilities:
    * How to bees/other insects react to light reflected back off large banks of cells? Does it mess with their navigation?
    * Do any of the plans to get cables out to the banks of cells mess with the wildlife they're trying to protect?
    * Do the cells have any (potentially) toxic runoff when hit with heavy rains/hail/etc?
    * will any residual heat from the cells mess with the local flora/fauna? (if it's an area that's normally snow-covered in winter, what happens if the heat from the cells keeps it snow-free? Does that mess with any of the local plants cycles?)

Re:ok

[Tweenk]

This is what their study aims to answer (what exactly are the concerns and how bad they are). Unfortunately random people's suppositions don't substitute research, which is why they are investigating it.

Re:ok

[danzona]

Someone give me some possible downsides to solar energy.

It isn't so much the solar energy itself, it is the stuff that is necessary to collect the solar energy and then get it to people's houses.

If somebody wants to build a large solar collecting station out in the middle of nowhere* there are some questions that need to be answered. I'm kind of disappointed that they don't already know most of this stuff since people have been building on BLM land for 200 years, but hey that's the government for you.

[*The BLM manages land in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Montana, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. There probably are not a lot of requests for solar plants in Alaska though.]

I don't pretend to be at all knowledgeable on the subject, but I would guess that before the BLM lets somebody start a project, they would want to know stuff like:

• What kind of construction is necessary to build the collecting station and how will that impact local wildlife?
• How high off the ground should the panels be deployed so that they don't interfere with migrating animals?
• How much clearcutting around the project is necessary to be safe from wildfires?
• Will the wire that moves the electricity from the collector to the substation be above ground or below ground and what are the impacts of both approaches?
• How are the collectors cleaned and is there any runoff?

Re:ok

[gunnk]

What you say is true for photovoltaics, but you can use concentrated sunlight to make steam to turn a turbine or use it other ways. That cuts some of the downsides.

PV solar is still (a) expensive, (b) inefficient, and (c) pretty environmentally bad in terms of manufacturing the cells. Of course the increase in demand for PV cells is driving innovation and improvement in those areas.

Then again, I love a giant solar furnace, so maybe I'm biased. :-)

Re:ok

[chrysrobyn]

Also, as a joker pointed out earlier, since they don't work at night, you need batteries...our battery technology is also fairly heavy on the heavy metals right now. These also wear out, often faster than the cells do.

Thermal solar power works by heating something like liquid sodium and then using that to heat steam to 1000F, which is a very efficient temperature to run a steam turbine. As such, they work at night, for between 2-20 hours after sundown (can even out a partially cloudy day, for example).

Thermal solar doesn't need batteries, and you don't use batteries for a grid intertie solar plant. Most energy is needed during the day, when the sun is brightest, so honestly, the big point is taking peak needs off the coal plants -- which is how you have to size them and where you pay most of your money. Photovoltaics can feed into the grid and provide this peak pretty well, although it's yet to be seen if thermal solar can beat them for efficiency.

Re:ok

[Socguy]

I'm sorry but what species of plant and animal are you referring to? A solar installation does not turn the ground black, even under the collectors as they are mounted several feet off the ground, and as the sun moves, so to will the shadow they cast. Now, I grant you that if you go into a forest and cut down all the trees to install your collectors, you will change the ecosystem, but logically, the best locations for solar installations are going to be the desert locations that receive the highest levels of sun which, in turn, eliminates all but the hardiest plants and animals anyway.

Re:ok

[Socguy]

As others point out, most large scale solar installations look to be the solar-thermal type as they are capable of providing base-load power without the use of electrical batteries. (So yes, they work at night). Wikipedia has a nice little overview of the different types out there (and some cool pics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy

Having said that, it is important to study what effect, if any, solar installations would have on the local environment. Only by understanding what effects may be caused can we mitigate or eliminate them.

Re:ok

[Anonymous Coward]

The short answer is that you avoid the sun by having you head up your ass. Here is the long answer:

With a typical lifetime of 20 to 30 years, this means that modern solar cells are net energy producers, i.e they generate much more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback

The challenge of variable power supply may be readily alleviated by energy storage. Available storage options include pumped-storage hydro systems, batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, and thermal mass. Initial investments in such energy storage systems may be high, although the costs can be recovered over the life of the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Availability_and_reliability

Heat storage allows a solar thermal plant to produce electricity at night and on overcast days. This allows the use of solar power for baseload generation as well as peak power generation, with the potential of displacing both coal and natural gas fired power plants. Additionally, the utilization of the generator is higher which reduces cost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy#Heat_storage

If renewable and distributed generation were to become widespread, electric power transmission and electricity distribution systems might no longer be the main distributors of electrical energy but would operate to balance the electricity needs of local communities. Those with surplus energy would sell to areas needing "top ups".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy#Environmental_and_social_considerations

I don't have time to find quotes about your "interesting points", but they all seem like red herrings. Do you really think that people who design power plants are incapable of designing reasonable cabling? Do you think that they can't build hardware that will have no meaningful toxic runoff? And by the way, these system will be installed in the desert, where there is minimal "local flora/fauna". And although it does snow in the desert on occasion, these will be build in areas where snow (or any rain) doesn't stay on the ground.

All you are doing is displaying your stupidity and slavish devotion the the current dysfunctional system. As I have said in other contexts, the only people stupider then you are the morons who rated you +5 informative. You, and they, have nothing to do with facts.

Re:ok

[drinkypoo]

What kind of construction is necessary to build the collecting station and how will that impact local wildlife?

Regardless, I will guarantee that it will be less than the effects of the clear-cutting that the BLM authorizes on the land under their control which has trees on it.

How high off the ground should the panels be deployed so that they don't interfere with migrating animals?

Do you mean lizards or birds? Pretty irrelevant either way. We're mostly talking about desert here. As in, a bunch of sand that mother nature will eventually try to cover up by fixing it with grasses which catch dirt and seeds.

How much clearcutting around the project is necessary to be safe from wildfires?

In the desert? I wasn't aware that cacti were a big fire hazard. Anyway, the BLM allows all KINDS of clearcutting ALL THE TIME so it's pretty irrelevant on the scale of the kinds of shit they allow all the time. They actually do not give one tenth of one shit about environmental impact, this is just a delaying tactic so that Bush &c (who are all big oil and/or contractors for other types of power plant) can make more money by poisoning the globe with fossil fuels.

Will the wire that moves the electricity from the collector to the substation be above ground or below ground and what are the impacts of both approaches?

The impacts of both approaches are pretty well known because there's already plenty of this shit in BLM land already.

How are the collectors cleaned and is there any runoff?

One relevant question out of five. Woo hoo!

Re:ok

[mdsolar]

FirstSolar, which makes CdTe cells, includes the price of collecting and recycling the panels in the sales price (or lease I guess since you don't get to keep the panels). So, there is no plan for these to enter a landfill. Silicon panels require only about one third the energy to refurbish as they do to make so used silicon is quite valuable. Again, the landfill does not seem a likely fate.

Re:ok

[GleeBot]

Building solar plants can often be an environmentally unfriendly process. Once they're in operation, though, fairly clean technology.

Something to be said for shading effects and so on, too, but we're talking about putting a bunch of mirrors/panels in the middle of a desert. The wildlife would probably welcome a little patch of shade.

Honesty gentlemen..

[Anonymous Coward]

this being /., the mods should have been 'interesting' as 'insightful' implies actual experience with said women

Nothing changes.

[russotto]

They're still not going to actually _approve_ any of these applications. Instead, they'll just let them pile up while they "study" the issue.

If the Department of the Interior were in control of Saudi Arabia there wouldn't be a drop of oil coming out of it...

Re:Nothing changes.

[Gerafix]

There would be but it would be $5 a drop.

hot female electrical engineer

[jimbolauski]

I don't know where you work/go to school but hot female electrical engineers are hard to find, then when you do find one they are usually off a bit, probably due to the bad A game they hear all the time.

Awesome

[hypergreatthing]

So not only does it create electricity from solar energy but provides free meals as well? Hot.

Re:i posted this two weeks ago with a better headl

[John Jamieson]

I advocated the same thing as has happened as well. The replies insinuated I was an idiot and got modded up.
My post, no mod points, but at least I wasn't marked flamebait.

An aside. I't good I didn't get modded down, I got modded down enough around that time. I made the mistake of saying I should really abandon my Perl experience and learn Python (because I feel it is better).
Man, did I learn my lesson! Some Perl coder out there is such a rabid fanboy that it would make the other camps (apple, ms, evolution, whatever) envious!

Re:Downside #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's never heard of lunar power...

Re:Peta vs Guide dogs for the blind

[feed_me_cereal]

Personally, I would consider this more as a lack of understanding than a lack of compassion (though personally I don't know a lot about the service dog industry, so I can't say myself). It seems more like an overabundance of compassion for the dogs than a lack of compassion for the disabled. If the persons goal was to deprive disabled people of help, that would be a different story. It's highly disingenuous to imply she is, however.

Re:Peta vs Guide dogs for the blind

[fm6]

OK, they're stupid, and they show an inability to balance conflicting moral imperatives. Not the same thing as "not showing compassion".

Oil-Coddling Bush Admin--SWINE!

[curmudgeon99]

This is another example of the Bush Administration using its power to block anything at all that might take dollar 1 out of the hands of their oil industry buddies. That was a despicable act. They do not want solar to catch on.

Imagine! Clueless comments on Slashdot.

[ahfoo]

The most interesting thing about this whole debacle has been seeing how many people have so little clue about solar thermal. When the story first broke you could see all these Republican apologists ranting about the horrors of photovoltaic production just as we see in this thread here on Slashdot on the other end of the story.

And then if it wasn't the atrocity of silane gas and photovoltaics then it was about how they were going to have to install all these new power lines. Again, we're seeing this same ignorant idiot trash spewed all over Slashdot.

The truth is, this is about solar thermal and this has been throughly vetted in public documents that are freely available to anyone with the slightest interest in the topic. Such far-left comunist hippies as Arnold Schwarzenegger drafted the document which explains in great detail that they have planned the solar thermal projects in question specifically to intersect with existing grid-interties.

No! Gasp, you mean somebody already thought of it?

Yes, read it yourself. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
      It's the Western Governorsâ(TM) Association. Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative. Solar Task Force Report. Get it while it's hot kids.

http://cleantechlawandbusiness.com/cleanbeta/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/solar-full.pdf.

      But what I really like about this whole story, yeah I have enjoyed this story from beginning to end, is that it raised the prominence of solar thermal in the mass media. All the long-haired dope smoking hippies bloggers in the world couldn't have achieved what the Bush BLM managed in a single month.

      Thanks BLM!

Why Leases?

[Mspangler]

Why are they leasing the land instead of selling it? Put suitable parcels out for bids. Sell it, put the money into the treasury (ideally into the Social Security Trust Fund) and sign over a deed.

Then the local county and state would get some tax revenue, and the people can start developing the rest of the West. We have too much "Crown Land" as it is. And given the rate they are ripping up what few roads are there, the public is being kept out of more all the time.

Besides that, we keep tearing up good farmland to build because the rocky wastes were never claimed when the land was still open for settlement, and now that we have found a use rocky wasteland, the government won't sell it. So, we tear up the farmland because it's privately held, and thus can be sold.

It's time the Federal Government started selling land again. Over 70% Federal land ownership is too much (ID, UT, NV) and 1% is probably too little (NY), somewhere between is the right level.

hot female electrical engineer

[onkelonkel]

hot female electrical engineer - individually each word makes sense, but when taken in sequence, I can discern no actual meaning.

Tear down that straw man!

[bigtrike]

Way to go!

Re:Better than more Nuke Plants

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I can not understand why people say nuclear is safe. I would accept fusion plants not fission plants. One fission plant going critical with the right weather system overhead could render North America uninhabitable.

I have my doubts about the safety of nuclear plants, but mostly with regard to their effect upon the local area, ala the German leukemia studies. The risk of catastrophic failure with modern designs seems insignificant though, regardless of the weather.

hehehehe

[WindBourne]

and big oil (or you) really care about somebody trying to get by with high heating oil/energy costs??????

Even as a Libertarian, I can tell you that it is BIG money that tries hard to create monopolies/oliglopolies, avoid the law, charge outlandioush amounts of money, and hates being taxed. I do not agree with all the tax attitudes that some have, and I really hate the feds give price supports via tax cuts, direct aid, etc. But I will say that those hippies push that .

Re:Better than more Nuke Plants

[Socguy]

I agree with you, although, I wouldn't want to be so alarmist. With a few notable exceptions, most nuclear plants globally have a reasonable track record of safety, so far at least. Be wary though, as the old saying goes: if you build a foolproof technology, they'll just breed a better fool...

Joking aside, my problems with nuclear are many. First, it's not a green as proponents seem to think. Before you can generate steam, you must mine, transport and refine the uranium.

Next you have the issue of the waste. Eventually it must be transported and stored. Say what you will about our ability to store this stuff for a million years, frankly, it's an unknown. I'm aware that many /.'ers strongly believe that this is not a problem. I disagree. You're dealing with once in a million years events, geological, astronomical and political. Hell, a nuclear waste dump would be the ultimate dirty bomb. Now, beyond the ethical question of downloading this responsibility of maintaining our waste safely onto successive generations (another discussion in itself), who's ultimately holding the bag financially for this long term storage?

Another problem is that eventually someone has to decommission all the nuclear plants that have been built. How do you do this and has this cost been factored into the price? How many plants globally have been successfully decommissioned and who gets to pay for it? Is Yucca mountain designed to have old reactors tossed into it?

Finally, here in Canada, the nuclear industry has been plagued by major cost and time overruns and even once built, reactors are not achieving the up times that were promised. It's an industry that could not survive financially without government assistance. I suspect that the same is true for many other installations world-wide.

In the end, the most persuasive argument against nuclear for me is that we (especially in North America) simply don't need nuclear. As a society we would be farther ahead to put the effort and money associated with nuclear into a combination of Geo-thermal, Solar-thermal, Wind and one day even fusion.

Re:Better than more Nuke Plants

[drinkypoo]

Chernobyl is an example of design so bad that we actually don't have anything so foul in the US (although my understanding is that small, shitty reactors are all over the former soviet union. But I would like to be wrong.) And we have safer designs which we would like to build. I think even Hitachi has a spiffy design for a small reactor.

Remember these nuclear plants are ran by for profit businesses. Just like our food supply is grown by for profit businesses and that's clearly not working lately.

Profit is not the problem. The problem is what we permit corporations to do in pursuit of it.

Wait!

[crhylove]

You mean giant oil corporations own our "democracy" and dictate all policy?!?!, NO WAY!

Wake me up when the corporations bring:

JFK
RFK
The Constitution
The Bill of Rights
Freedom of the Press
Democracy

back to life. Until then I'm going to deep freeze myself until society readvances to the point of sanity.

Re:However

[h2_plus_O]

Perhaps if we weren't spending 3 billion a week in Iraq, and driving large vehicles huge distances to grossly inefficient oversized houses, we'd be able to afford a heating oil subsidy until alternatives are available.

mmmmm... a heating oil subsidy would merely ensure that no alternatives become available. The purpose of a subsidy is to insulate people from the price pain of consuming, yes? If you watch the way people behave (as distinct from how they talk), you'll note that we respond to price, not to moralizing. Without the pain telling us to change, no change will occur.

A subsidy would signal to consumers that conservation is unimportant. It would also signal to producers of alternative energy and competing technologies that this isn't a market worth investing in, since the underlying utility (energy) is made artificially cheap and therefore hard to compete with.

If we'd been half-smart, we'd have done for ourselves 5 years ago what the market's done for us today: Drive up the price. A $1/gal tax on gas, whose revenue offset an equivalent cut in payroll taxes would have allowed us to pay for our investments in efficiency, while incentivizing the same- instead, we're just sending those dollars direct to Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Frankly, I'd be OK if we did that today (even though I'd feel it in the pocketbook). Have a look around- see how SUV sales have fallen off a cliff, economy vehicles are backordered, and public transit ridership is waaaay up? None of that really happened when gas was cheap.

No he isn't

[D.McGuiggin]

"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"

No he isn't, he's talking about building infrastructure that will continue to see use after the end of gas powered vehicles. Electric cars still drive on roads.

If you look closely, it is YOU who is foisting the straw man of "dino juice" upon him. There are more kinds of pollution than what comes out of a tailpipe. Noise, heat, etc. Taking palliative measures to reduce these things, which still exist with electric vehicles isn't the vile idea your screed makes it out to be.

You just jumped on your high horse and assumed you had the answer, when you didn't even understand the question. If there's anything I dislike about this new environmentalism, it's how often I see people doing exactly that.

Re:Better than more Nuke Plants

[dbIII]

Chernobyl is an example of design so bad that we actually don't have anything so foul in the US

Put down the waving flag and consider that the plants built in the 1980s were improvements of those from the 1950s and later plus the USSR had access to the majority of the technology used in the US civilian plants. The plant actually won an international safety award early in 1986. There are far worse designs running - nuclear power has to be treated with respect and it really wasn't treated that way which is why the accident happened.

Nuclear power advocates have to update a bit from their 1985 views instead of just writing off an accident as the fault of stupid Russians. From talking to a former Russian engineer from nuclear power plants there are a variety of stupid things that go on but browsing the ESRI literature on problems in US plants reveals similar levels of stupidity (and far greater than you would believe in some US coal fired plants, but that's another story). Newer reactors in places like Indonesia have utterly appalling safety practices from some anecdotes I've heard from a person that worked there.

Bureau of Livestock and Mining

[abbamouse]

That's the unofficial name for the agency. They have no problem allowing fragile scrubland to be overgrazed without compensation to the public or environmental protection. They have no problem with coal companies removing the tops of entire mountains and dumping the waste into nearby river valleys. But now that someone wants to build a solar plant, they're up in arms over the environmental risks. Ugh. The BLM is the most worthless part of a worthless Interior Department, long since captured by ranchers and the coal industry.

Re:Peta vs Guide dogs for the blind

[rootpassbird]

the article's about solar and we're talking peta and ethics. So please pardon my digression too - helping people is far more difficult for a common man than helping stray dogs or in general stray animals. SPCAs aim to introduce compassion into ignorant minds, of course for the sake of animals alone. But that ends up making people compassionate to the poor, the homeless, the hungry, probably because compassion is the same to our brains. Typically, a large majority of people hardly ever think of others, let alone act for. Most pet owners use the pet for personal comfort or satisfaction (no goats please, thanks) Very few think of dignity for animals. That's damn true statistics.
PETA does some thing in that respect - maybe at 10% efficiency - that's the way the freedom-of-speech and democratic world works - you say what is important to you.

Re:Sun Emits Radiation

[jbburks]

I've never heard of a sunlight spill, but I know lots of people who have gotten serious RADIATION burns from that sun thing. It ought to be stopped, before more people are burned and injured like my kids have been. Who knows, it might even cause CANCER. We need more studies before approving the sun.

Humanitarian vs Environmentalist Death Match!

[skeptictank]

So your complaint is that environmentalists care about the environment, not people? I have a similar complaint about humanitarians. They don't care about the environment.

I'm getting front row tickets for that. Let the hair pulling begin!

bash man

[BASH guy]

Apparently none of the solar applications have been approved so what was the rationale for not continuing doing what hasn't yet been done.

Re:Peta vs Guide dogs for the blind

[feed_me_cereal]

You're preaching to the choir :) I never intended to undermine efforts by the SPCA in my post. In fact, I'm a frequent donor for the SPCA and work with volunteers from the HSUS on policy initiatives and volunteer for the city animal shelter. I just think that the previously linked opinion piece on service animals goes a bit too far, but again, I don't know a lot about service animals so I wouldn't say that with certainty. I would imagine that dogs would enjoy these positions because of the stimulation they receive from the training and from performing their tasks. Many pets never get this kind of attention.

Re:Better than more Nuke Plants

[jlanthripp]

In order to "go critical" a power plant would have to have, well, a critical mass. The fuel rods for the 4 biggest power plants in the world don't contain enough fissionable material combined to "go critical."

There are quite a few reasonable arguments against nuclear power, but the "going critical" red herring isn't one of them.

Bonus points

[znerk]

for successfully implementing a Tool reference in a Slashdot post.

Those poor carrots.