BLM calls for 2-year Moratorium on Solar

[stevejust]

Sigh. I just came across this little tid-bit of news: the Bureau of Land Management has called for a 2-year moratorium on building new Solar Power Plants.

So, we can drill and strip mine all we want, but god forbid we install any new solar capacity.

This has Bush-administration-logic written all over it. Anyone have further insight?

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1806/83/

[pthalo]

i think you need to read through the comments and see how this blog writer was simply taking one side, the side that blames everything on the bush administration.

i am a liberal and i do believe that the energy policy of the new administration is pathetic at best, but i also don't think that we should be heading full speed ahead into a technology that we are not fully aware of its implications. we did that with nuclear power and now you see what a gridlock that is.

i have been a conspiracy theorist in the past but i am beginning to realize that too many people would rather concoct some theory about why things aren't what they feel they should be, instead of doing their own civic duty by expressing their needs and ideas to their elected officials.

if you don't like what is going on in our government, here's what you do.

1. call your congressmen/women at the state and local levels
2. call your congressmen/women at the national level
3. continue to do this while also expressing the need to change at the local level to your community
4. exercise your duty to vote. yes its a right that we have to vote, but if you choose not to, then you choose to have no say in how this country is governed (IMHO)
5. if things still aren't in your range of acceptability, then you should run for office yourself.

if you are unwilling to do these things, then how much do you really want this change. (note: these comments are not directed at the poster or any other specific person). we have principals in our government that certainly people understand but they do not actually participate in.

the beauty of our system is the fact that it can be changed from the bottom up w/o force or violence. the strongest voice, the most powerful contingent, the largest opportunity for change in this country comes from the people, and until we reclaim that power and take on our civic duty, there will be no change, and there will be no better future.

stop looking to the government to make your life better or to blame when it isn't. you are the base of this government and if it fails, each of us is to blame.

what BLM is doing isn't the best and its not the worst, but they are the stewards of that land and to blindly do what market trends say is right, would not be in the best interest of the people or the climate.

[stevejust]

I mean... I can't avoid sounding like a jackass for saying this, but I talk to politicians all the time, and not in the letter-writing-sense. In the last, say, two years, I've had face-to-face substantive one-on-one conversations with Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Reid, Durbin, Cantwell, Stabenow, and a good smattering of state-level politicians. So I don't need to be lectured. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some national pols on that list, including republicans like Spector... but I haven't seen Spector for more than two years. Now if you'll excuse me for a second, I have to pick up some of the names I just dropped....

Okay, I'm back. Secondly, I'm ALL FOR EIAs... EIAs are the Environmental Impact Assessments the BLM is saying they need to figure out how to perform for solar power plants. There's no question they need to figure out how such EIAs need to be performed, and what potential impacts such facilities might have. This is me not blindly calling out, "conspiracy!" this is me saying, "WTF is going on?" They have never to my knowledge stalled an EIA for ANY fossil fuel project under the guise of not knowing how to perform it. It's always something that they figure out how to do as the permit process goes forward. Usually, the EIA gets fastracked and done pretty shoddily. So the fact that not only is solar being put under the magnifying glass, but ALSO flat out shelved for TWO YEARS is flippin' huge news.

[Hydrotopia]

Well, if mass solar endangers desert tortises and other wildlife habitat it HAS to be reviewed because it is sound environmental practice.

This is why I like rooftop solar because it doesn't take up any more footprint.

[pthalo]

(note: these comments are not directed at the poster or any other specific person).

slow down dude, i wasn't talking about you. i was responding to the blog your linked to and the comments i read there. no offense but if you blow up like that in front of everyone, i know from experience that people won't listen.

but ALSO flat out shelved for TWO YEARS is flippin' huge news.

read the comments and those who actually point out that this claim is FALSE.

this is how the movement is going to get hurt. something doesn't go perfectly so person A call foul and then person B chimes in, then it devolves to mudslinging and empty accusations. this is not going to happen overnight and its not going to be smooth.

just because we made mistakes with other fuel sources, does not mean that we should make them again. the status quo is what we are trying to get away from.

the blog that you posted is full of statements and references that are taken out of context and meant to elicit purely emotional not intellectual responses.

i would like to commend you on your activism. if there were more people who sought out that level of access (assuming you are a citizen and not someone with "special" access), then we would be much better off, but i do want to reiterate what i have now said twice, my comments are NOT a shot at you.

[pthalo]

I have to pick up some of the names I just dropped....

you want a cookie?

[stevejust]

I was going by the linked NY Times story as much or more so than the ecogeek.org take on it...

And it wasn't a "blow up," I was trying to light heartedly chide you about presumptions you may have been making.

[pthalo]

third paragraph of NY Times article:

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's not stopping the projects it's just saying no more new proposals, which may be a good idea. the current groundswell could overwhelm the landscape and cause more problems than it solves.

note: NY Times is an EXTREMELY liberal media outlet and often writes articles from a partisan perspective. this isn't too bad, but it definitely takes a liberal's POV.

while i am a voting democrat i am a realist, and what BLM is doing is probably right and has little to nothing to do with the current administrations poor/nonexistent energy policy.

[stevejust]

note: NY Times is an EXTREMELY liberal media outlet and often writes articles from a partisan perspective. this isn't too bad, but it definitely takes a liberal's POV.

Ever hear of Thomas Friedman? William Safire? How about Judy Miller (and Michael Gordon)?

There's an old bumper sticker that reads, "the liberal media is only as liberal as the conservative corporations that own them." [Try reading this for a bit more substance to the bumper sticker, for example. The idea of a "liberal" media depends largely on how you definite liberal, but it sure ain't anything close to "liberal" from my perspective. I'm tired of hearing about the liberal media. Just 'cause all the right wingers keep saying the media is liberal over and over again in the media does not make it so.

[pthalo]

Just 'cause all the right wingers keep saying the media is liberal over and over again in the media does not make it so.

i am no right winger. i have read enough to know where someone leans politically. its a poor assumption on your side that i simply listen to what others say and adopt their views.

let me be more specific, Dan Frosch the writer of the original article has a liberal point of view of how to deliver his stories.

[pthalo]

the biggest problem i have with what the article is saying is the line that states "These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span.."

say what! why has this become the standard for durability. why can't we start looking at designs that last 100+ years or through maintenance and technological innovation have a perpetual existence more in line with natural processes.

at this point i think we need more than a grassroots green revolution we need a global "green" human evolution.

[P.]

BLM decisions only affect federal land. So while they have a solar moratorium, they're pushing whole-hog for new drilling for oil in Wyoming and elsewhere. This pretty much puts the protection argument out the window, it's not about prudent use but prudent capitalization. Check the BLM's position on that, and administration complicity is clear. It's head is, after all, appointed.
The BLM has given away way too much federal forest for next to nothing to have any respect from me. They're shills like much of the rest of our federal government agencies.
But in terms of solar, private projects will continue and expand, I have no doubt.

[mikebeavis]

Coupla' points.

One, if Obama gets elected in the fall, I would think he'd kick BLM to fast-track any real problems they see to get these things up and running. You can't build the power plants of the future with a moratorium going on. McCain, I dunno, maybe yes maybe no. The whole thing does smack of "old money" trying to kill off the upstarts just when they have a chance to finally make a difference, doesn't it? I'm not saying Bush made them do it, but man, it's just the kind of thing that makes for a good conspiracy theory, and not all of them are wrong.

Two, perhaps a side benefit of this is that the massive producers won't be able to buy up all the production and WE the citizens could buy some of that "cheap solar" we keep hearing about If homeowners could buy up some production and put it to good use BEFORE the big guys' get their hands on it, we might have a coupla years to really change some folks' mindsets about power consumption/production. All the people on here who say "just wait until it's $1.50/watt and I'll jump on the bandwagon" would have their moment to act - even if it was only a window of opportunity before the moratorium runs out.

Seriously though, I'm looking at the silver lining here. The darker side of me says "What the heck are they thinking? Reclaiming desert land from clean energy is something you have to think about?" Is there some animal out there that's going to be harmed by having 14 acres nearby shaded?

[mikebeavis]

the biggest problem i have with what the article is saying is the line that states "These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span.."

That's really just a garbage thing to say and it stuck out to me too. The individual panel may fail in 20-35 years...but if it's worth putting one out there now, don't you think it would be worth replacing one that failed when it fails? If you can make money generating clean energy when it's costly to produce, you'll probably replace the failed unit in 25 years with a cheaper one. The individual panel may have such a lifetime, but the facility as a whole ought to be good for much, much longer than that.

Are we expecting that no replacement (or better) units will be available in 25 years?

[pthalo]

replacement in today's society means throwing something away, downcylcing and in very very few cases actually recycling. so yes this is a problem. unless solar panels provide direct product to product resources when they meet the end of their first generational use, they are simply WASTE in 20-30 years. yes they served a great purpose over that time and were better than the alternatives

this attitude that good in the short term or being less bad is actually the optimal is disturbing to me. we should strive for the optimal and not accept the normal mode of thinking. why not create a system that lasts 100 years and its resources feed its perpetual existence.