Slashdot Mirror


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."

31 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Frozen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because Big Oil doesn't like Big Sun.

    1. Re:Frozen? by y86 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Frozen? by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Frozen? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    4. Re:Frozen? by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Frozen? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is necessary
      This is necessary
      Life
      Feeds on life
      Feeds on life
      Feeds on life
      Feeds on

      PETA displays a lack of compassion for the realities of life for the average person that is guaranteed to alienate them. When you give someone a hard time for eating meat or wearing leather, things that mankind has probably been doing since long before anyone ever had the idea (misguided or no) that there might be some ethical reason not to do so, you're making their life harder for something that they have little control over - their upbringing. I'd say that shows a lack of compassion... their lack of understanding for your position in life.

      Finally, I do think that the members of PETA are a bunch of idiots, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I can look in the mirror and see what shape my teeth are. I don't believe any of that dizzy-headed bullshit about humans being the only animals who kill for fun (my cat does it) or about being the only ones who make war (ants do it) or any of that. If you want to go with what the majority of animals in nature do you'll spawn and separate and maybe die. But odds aren't bad that you'll eat some other animal for lunch. You probably won't wear one, but only because you don't have the combination of clever hands and a big brain that will let you get the idea. Is it demonizing them to say that I think they're all fundamentally damaged at some deep emotional level?

      I personally know someone who at one point in their life cried because they couldn't stand to kill a vegetable. ("I'm a level five vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow.") They realized the absurdity of the situation and began eating meat again too, because the plant is alive, and the animal is alive, and they both taste good. We're not meant to subside on plants alone, our body simply isn't designed that way. Even if it was, to live naturally is not desirable. If it was you'd typically die at 35 of one of your many diseases. Er, not you personally... the general "you" :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Government listening to the people?? by blahbooboo · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    Yes, it's from ... Ghostbusters!

  3. Continue Building! by Wandering+Wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
    1. Re:Continue Building! by gunnk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Life is short: void the warranty.
  4. Don't review it! by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Don't review it! by StaticEngine · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Don't review it! by StreetStealth · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    3. Re:Don't review it! by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:Don't review it! by Gat0r30y · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    5. Re:Don't review it! by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    6. Re:Don't review it! by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      Links please...

  5. Solar plants are dangerous! by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Solar plants are dangerous! by greenguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      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!

      --
      What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
  6. No Solar Projects Approved by Alcimedes · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:No Solar Projects Approved by tthomas48 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:No Solar Projects Approved by tthomas48 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  7. Germany has them by mschuyler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.'

    --
    How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    1. Re:Germany has them by NiKem · · Score: 4, Informative

      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

  8. Possible detrimental environmental effects... by Plazmid · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:Possible detrimental environmental effects... by gclef · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  9. Re:I blame the fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Builders or speculators? by rrkap · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    I like my beverages with warning labels!
  11. Re:ok by gclef · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?)

  12. Re:ok by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
  13. Re:ok by chrysrobyn · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  14. Re:Good! by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"