DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.
The Bureau of Land Management says an extensive environmental study is needed to determine how large solar plants might affect millions of acres it oversees in six Western states — Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.
But the decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.
“It doesn’t make any sense,” said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, Calif. “The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry.”
Since killing off most federally funded solar energy R&D and now tax credits wasn't able to stop the solar energy industry from growing (commercially), should anyone be surprised that the Bush Admin would use one of it's few remaining roadblocks to derail solar energy. _________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
Joined: May 06, 2008 Posts: 281 Location: Omicron Ceti 3
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q
joe1347 wrote:
should anyone be surprised that the Bush Admin would use one of it's few remaining roadblocks to derail solar energy?
No, we are not the least bit surprised.
We are curious, however, to witness just how much further Bush & Co. can Fark things up. He's been on such a roll, one may query "where will it end?" "How will it end?"
The only bright spot: this catastrophic juggernaut WILL END at some point.
Joined: Apr 12, 2007 Posts: 1165 Location: Central NC
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
DoomWarrior wrote:
joe1347 wrote:
should anyone be surprised that the Bush Admin would use one of it's few remaining roadblocks to derail solar energy?
No, we are not the least bit surprised.
We are curious, however, to witness just how much further Bush & Co. can Fark things up. He's been on such a roll, one may query "where will it end?" "How will it end?"
The only bright spot: this catastrophic juggernaut WILL END at some point.
Hopefully in federal court. _________________ "The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill
Joined: Jun 28, 2005 Posts: 348 Location: san jose CA
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q
Wow, just when you think it couldn't get any worse I come to read this. I can only hope that this is being overblown and is due in fact to the phenomenal growth of the solar energy industry has caught the bureau of land management of guard and they need to step back and reassess the implications of all this development. Then again, given the track record of the federal government under Bush its hard to believe they would air on the side of caution and nuanced concern over the environment. I am sure there are some legitimate environmental questions about large scale solar though IMO the pros vastly outweigh the cons, but somehow I doubt those concerns are shared by the likes of Bush and friends.
Joined: May 06, 2008 Posts: 281 Location: Omicron Ceti 3
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
sicophiliac wrote:
Wow, just when you think it couldn't get any worse I come to read this. I can only hope that this is being overblown and is due in fact to the phenomenal growth of the solar energy industry has caught the bureau of land management of guard and they need to step back and reassess the implications of all this development. Then again, given the track record of the federal government under Bush its hard to believe they would air on the side of caution and nuanced concern over the environment. I am sure there are some legitimate environmental questions about large scale solar though IMO the pros vastly outweigh the cons, but somehow I doubt those concerns are shared by the likes of Bush and friends.
It's common knowledge that solar energy facilities are far worse for the environment than oil drilling and coal mining.
Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 228 Location: Chaska, MN
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
Homesteader wrote:
DoomWarrior wrote:
joe1347 wrote:
should anyone be surprised that the Bush Admin would use one of it's few remaining roadblocks to derail solar energy?
No, we are not the least bit surprised.
We are curious, however, to witness just how much further Bush & Co. can Fark things up. He's been on such a roll, one may query "where will it end?" "How will it end?"
The only bright spot: this catastrophic juggernaut WILL END at some point.
Hopefully in federal court.
+1
I can't believe that we still allow this guy to ruin(run?) our country....What the hell is wrong with us? Why don't we ever reach a breaking point and do SOMETHING?
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q
I hope we can do something about him this fall. We need a new person in the White House, for a start. Then we need to get serious about changing from an oil economy to one where renewables are encouraged, not actively discouraged.
Bush represents the last century. We need to move on. _________________ Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
Joined: Jun 28, 2005 Posts: 348 Location: san jose CA
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:26 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q
I for the first time ever e-mailed senator Boxer from California on this very issue. Never did that before but this is a breaking point for me I guess. Thom Hartman has senator Berney Sanders on every Friday from 9-12 Fridays on his radio show, may I urge anybody here to call him on the show and bring this issue up. The more noise thats made with this issue the more likely we can get the Bush admin to probably back off on it. Given the current political climate, opposition to solar energy is essentially political suicide the way I see it.
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q
Saying that "Bush" is responsible for this, or that we can't wait for Bush to leave . . .
. . . is a mistake.
It takes the focus off of where it belongs, which is the entire Congress.
Democrats have run Congress for 2 years and they haven't changed a thing. Not . . . one . . . thing.
So Bush leaving will not amount to anything other than a changing of the guard.
I think one of the worst things about the Bush administration is that they've conveniently served to narrow the focus and blame, thereby causing little attention to be paid to what everyone else is doing.
For example, there are still some hopeful Card Carrying Democrats out there who believe that . . .
"well, we can't do anything with both houses of Congress, but you wait until we take the White House too. Then! Then you're really going to see some change."
! _________________ Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.
Joined: Nov 01, 2005 Posts: 834 Location: Euro high horse bastard on the run
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
Yes, this is going to be just another of the greatest historical ironies on the record. The bushevik junta on the shoulders of the Repucratic party has stolen two presidential elections, waged several preemptive wars, flushed constitution and treasury into toilet, and most likely at least participated in coverup if not organized in some way the faul play on 9/11..
And in reaction no permanent riots, no general strikes or shut down of D.C., the U.S. sheeple DID EXACTLY NOTHING..
So, finally some PO aware pinky liberal genuine populist do-gooder reformist gets by chance into office by 2012-20 timeframe when the first harsh PO effects start to kick in and guess what? He/she will be linched by the already energized street mob..
And next you will get some order promissing "patriots" with military pedigree aka banana republic open style warlords, firstly on federal level, than as it desintegrates further some regional figures..
Enjoy the show, you paid the ticket! _________________ DOOMerotron: at all-time high [8.1] out of 10..
Joined: May 06, 2008 Posts: 281 Location: Omicron Ceti 3
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
biofuel13 wrote:
I can't believe that we still allow this guy to ruin(run?) our country....What the hell is wrong with us? Why don't we ever reach a breaking point and do SOMETHING?
DENVER — Faced with a surge in the number of proposed solar power plants, the federal government has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years.
The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.
Water use can be a factor as well, especially in the parched areas where virtually all of the proposed plants would be built. Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine.
“Reclamation is another big issue,” Ms. Resseguie said. “These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to restore that land is a big question for us.”
Since killing off most federally funded solar energy R&D and now tax credits wasn't able to stop the solar energy industry from growing (commercially), should anyone be surprised that the Bush Admin would use one of it's few remaining roadblocks to derail solar energy.
Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land agency’s manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts.”
In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29, measuring each one’s environmental impact.
While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.
The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that, solar advocates say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental problems.
“The problem is that this is a very young industry, and the majority of us that are involved are young, struggling, hungry companies,” said Lee Wallach of Solel, a solar power company based in California that has filed numerous applications to build on public land and was considering filing more in the next two years. “This is a setback.”
At a public hearing in Golden, Colo., on Monday, one of a series by the Bureau of Land Management across the West, reaction to the moratorium was mixed.
Alex Daue, an outreach coordinator for the Wilderness Society, an environmental conservation group, praised the government for assessing the implications of large-scale solar development.
Since it is federal (Public, we the people) land, the BLM MUST do their job to protect it. Water and long term impact has to be studied. Anyone involved in working on federally funded projects, the environmental impact studies delay so much, sometime years and decades. It is a requirement and that is a fact, thanks in many ways due to the environmentalist lobbying efforts.
The NYT editor is throwing his political jab at the Bush admin, but in his own article the next paragraph, he goes and admits the Dept of Interior is saying there will be a benefit: " Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land agency’s manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts.”"
Please, let us look at the full story and remove the NYT editor's bias to get to the truth. The D of Interior is moving forward, but BLM has to stop and evaluate, as mentioned in the article, the environmental impact on issues such as the Mojave ground squirrel of all things. Is this "nuts" or are we dealing with another Spotted Owl hooting away at the bureaucrats in DC?
The DOI, which IS THE BUSH ADMIN, is still moving forward on the applications and hopes to get a standard for the environment impact established. The wheels of the beltway moves ever SO SLOW. _________________ THE SIMPLE LIFE: One frozen pond, a few sticks, a little round puck, and a bunch of rowdy kids.
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&q
OH, BTW. Why is I-495 called the Washington Beltway? It is because, you go around and around and around and never get anywhere. Unless you get off, but they don't understand that. The belt straps them in and they don't see the reality outside of it.
No wonder why Reagan left that town to go back to the ranch and never looked back. He had such a love for the bureaucrats in that town. _________________ THE SIMPLE LIFE: One frozen pond, a few sticks, a little round puck, and a bunch of rowdy kids.
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
MyOldTDiIsStillGoing wrote:
OH, BTW. Why is I-495 called the Washington Beltway? It is because, you go around and around and around and never get anywhere. Unless you get off, but they don't understand that. The belt straps them in and they don't see the reality outside of it.
No wonder why Reagan left that town to go back to the ranch and never looked back. He had such a love for the bureaucrats in that town.
Sorry, cuting and pasting the rest of the article to show the Bush Admins CONCERN over the delicate desert environment isn't convincing for several reasons. First, the Bush Admin is pushing for immediate offshore drilling (for oil) - with no two year wait to study the environmental concerns. Hypocrites - to say the least. Second, have you ever been in the desert southwest? There's nothing there that's worth protecting besides a large stretches of barren land. Side note: a 50 mile x 50 mile area of the Mojave Desert (Arizona) covered with solar panels (~20% efficient photovoltaic or concentrated solar thermal) would provide about 50% of the US Electricity needs. I think that the US can do without a few square miles of the desert southwest to curb global warming and provide clean power. Third, the population in these sunny regions of the US is growing and will need electricity. Should we build more coal fired power plants which are already known polluters for a myriad of reasons - or should be start 'today' generating our energy using clean solar power? _________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." Homer Simpson
Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:28 pm Post subject: Re: Bush Kills off Solar Energy Citing "Environmental&a
joe1347 wrote:
MyOldTDiIsStillGoing wrote:
OH, BTW. Why is I-495 called the Washington Beltway? It is because, you go around and around and around and never get anywhere. Unless you get off, but they don't understand that. The belt straps them in and they don't see the reality outside of it.
No wonder why Reagan left that town to go back to the ranch and never looked back. He had such a love for the bureaucrats in that town.
Sorry, cuting and pasting the rest of the article to show the Bush Admins CONCERN over the delicate desert environment isn't convincing for several reasons. First, the Bush Admin is pushing for immediate offshore drilling (for oil) - with no two year wait to study the environmental concerns. Hypocrites - to say the least. Second, have you ever been in the desert southwest? There's nothing there that's worth protecting besides a large stretches of barren land. Side note: a 50 mile x 50 mile area of the Mojave Desert (Arizona) covered with solar panels (~20% efficient photovoltaic or concentrated solar thermal) would provide about 50% of the US Electricity needs. I think that the US can do without a few square miles of the desert southwest to curb global warming and provide clean power. Third, the population in these sunny regions of the US is growing and will need electricity. Should we build more coal fired power plants which are already known polluters for a myriad of reasons - or should be start 'today' generating our energy using clean solar power?
Bush didn't kill this project, you tree huggers did:
From the AP, Sunday, June 15, 2008
It seems like an idea any environmentalist would embrace: Build one of the world's largest solar power operations in the Southern California desert and surround it with plants that run on wind and underground heat.
Yet San Diego Gas & Electric Co. and its potential partners face fierce opposition because the plan also calls for a 150-mile, high-voltage transmission line that would cut through pristine parkland to reach the nation's eighth-largest city.
The showdown over how to get renewable energy to consumers will likely play out elsewhere around the country as well, as state regulators require electric utilities to rely less on coal and natural gas to fire their plants -- the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S.
Providers of renewable power covet cheap land and abundant sunshine and wind in places like west Texas, Montana, Wyoming and California's Mojave Desert and Imperial Valley. But utility executives say no one will build plants without power lines to connect those remote spots to big cities.
"This is a classic chicken and the egg," said Mike Niggli, chief operating officer of Sempra Energy's utilities business, which includes SDG&E. "No one can develop a project if they can't send (the electricity) anywhere. You need transmission."
SDG&E's $1.5-billion power line would cut 23 miles through the middle of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, a spot known for its hiking trails, wildflowers, palm groves, cacti and spectacular mountain views.
"This transmission line will cross through some of the most scenic areas of San Diego," said David Hogan of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It would just ruin it with giant, metal industrial power lines."
Environmentalists are pushing for renewable power to be generated closer to heavily populated areas, rather than brought in from distant sites. They point to Southern California Edison's ambitious plan for solar panels on Los Angeles-area rooftops as an example of a better approach.
Utilities say the roof panels will help but won't produce nearly enough power to satisfy state requirements.
The California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to vote as soon as August on SDG&E's proposed Sunrise Powerlink, which would carry enough power for about 750,000 homes -- or more than half of the utility's customers.
Regulators in 29 states and the District of Columbia are forcing utilities to boost the use of renewable energy to run electric plants.
California has been among the most aggressive, with the state's three investor-owned utilities required to get 20 percent of power from renewables by the end of 2010.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to reach 33 percent by 2020.
SDG&E, with 1.4 million customers, is California's laggard, getting just 6 percent of its power from renewables. PG&E Corp.'s Pacific Gas and Electric, with 5.1 million customers, gets 12 percent. Edison International's Southern California Edison, with 4.8 million customers, gets 16 percent.
Nationwide, utilities get only 2 percent of electricity from renewables, said Jone-Linn Wang, managing director of the global power group at Cambridge Energy Research Associates.
Edison hopes to draw more on solar and wind power by building a transmission line from the Mojave Desert to the Los Angeles area.
"It's a trade-off," said Stuart Hemphill, Edison's vice president for renewable and alternative power. "Clean energy perhaps requires building infrastructure in potentially sensitive areas. There's no way around it."
SDG&E's proposed route through Anza-Borrego, California's largest state park, ranked second worst among seven possible routes studied by state and federal regulators for environmental damage.
The plan calls for 141 towers through the park at an average height of 130 feet. The entire route would include 554 towers from the wind-swept desert of the Imperial Valley to a site near the Pacific Ocean in San Diego.
SDG&E would build the power line but buy the juice from a host of generating companies whose proposed plants harness energy from the sun, wind and underground heat.
The most ambitious generation project relies on a commercially untested technology for a gigantic solar plant.
Stirling Energy Systems Inc., a Phoenix startup, wants to build 12,000 solar dishes, each four stories tall, near El Centro, about 100 miles east of San Diego.
Stirling says a $100 million investment from NTR PLC, an Irish energy holding company, will pay for permits and design work, with construction to begin by the end of 2009. Bruce Osborn, Stirling's chief operating officer, estimates the plant itself will cost about $400 million.
That plant would initially feed into an existing power line and provide enough electricity for more than 200,000 homes, Osborn said. Stirling, however, would need more transmission capacity to pursue plans to triple the size of the plant, he said.
The technology relies on mirrored dishes collecting sunlight to heat gas and drive the cylinders of an engine. It has been tested on six solar dishes in New Mexico but now would move to mass production -- drawing plenty of skepticism from environmentalists.
"It's what we call new product introduction," responds Osborn, a former project manager at Ford Motor Co. "Everyone who builds a widget does the same thing. This is a big widget."
Even without Stirling, SDG&E has other, traditional renewable power generators knocking on its door with deals to provide power -- far more than the utility could accommodate, Niggli said.
Environmentalists have dueled for years with SDG&E's parent company, Sempra Energy, over operations just south of the border in Mexico that help supply power to the western U.S.
Critics claim Sempra built the plants in Mexico to skirt more rigorous environmental reviews in the U.S. They suggest SDG&E's proposed power line, which would start near the Mexican border, is part of a disguised effort to get electricity into the U.S. from Mexico, where Sempra has an electricity plant and the first liquefied natural gas terminal on the West Coast.
SDG&E dismisses those claims as a conspiracy theory.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
