The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has reversed its recent moratorium on new applications for solar-energy projects on public land, allowing companies to keep submitting proposals for new solar projects. The solar-project freeze had been instituted in late May while the BLM began conducting a two-year study on the potential environmental impacts of solar projects on public lands; the agency said the study would eventually help to speed projects along. However, due to pressure from the solar industry, Congress, and the public, the agency decided Wednesday that it could continue to process new applications after all, even as it studied solar's environmental impacts. The victory is only partial, however, as the BLM hasn't actually approved any of the 130 solar-project applications it already has. So, really, not approving a few more isn't that big of a deal for the agency. "We're encouraged that the BLM lifted their moratorium, but we're only halfway there," said Rhone Resch of the Solar Energy Industries Association. "We now need to get them to expedite the permitting of the solar projects."
source: Las Vegas Sun, Associated Press, The New York Times
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
stopgreenpath Posted 2:17 am
03 Jul 2008
the cumulative impact study was a POSITIVE thing for environmentalists and in no way stopped the process of these initial million acre Desert Death Squads from moving towards their goal of further entrenching Big Energy monopolies, externalizing their costs onto the planet and ratepayers, and gobbling up huge profits and manipulation opportunities, while we all sit here unable to get solar and wind onto our own properties.
if you had been attending any of these hearings, which clearly the writer of the above has not, you would understand that TRUE environmentalists, including most of the BLM staffers who actually work in these gorgeous ecosystems, know that LOCAL, POINT OF USE RENEWABLES are the only fiscally or environmentally responsible solution to the energy needs of this country. the 19th Century model of remote generation and transmission is only useful to perpetuate the kinds of price/supply manipulations that Enron and now Big Oil have hurt us with.
if you had been attending the hearings, you also would realize that Big Solar = Big Oil and Big Coal in their mercenary, rapacious tactics. these are not the "good guys" and it is childish to see the word "solar" and put a halo on anyone nearby. these guys are not only objecting to EIRs, they are demanding access to State and National Parks, National Forests, ACECs, DWMAs, nature preserves and private property (including homes) in their Gold Rush mentality. these are guys like T. Boone Pickens, not like John Muir, and they are taking a huge amount of our money, our wilderness, our private property, our water, and our opportunities to participate in the Renewable Economy, in order to enrich themselves, plain and simple.
if you want to fight The Man, then there he is - Big Solar. you need to get on the feed-in tariff, tax credits, and incentives/subsidies for residential and business-level renewable power, and get off the Big Energy greenwash of Big Solar and Big Wind - they are incredibly destructive, wasteful and unnecessary.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:44 am
03 Jul 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:00 am
03 Jul 2008
Let's drill oil off the coasts of California and Florida because we are too pure to put wind generators offshore where a couple of Senators have to look at them.
Let 1 in 4 children in Harlem continue to suffer asthma caused by fossil fuels so that we don't have besmirch the purity of Wolverine and Stopgreenpath. I hope those snowy white garments you wear don't get stained by splatters from all the people you will trample if you win what you are asking for.
Permalink
spiders Posted 3:05 am
03 Jul 2008
The way things were being presented, oil and gas permits were being approved hand over fist, while there was going to be a moratorium on solar. Was that not the case?
I'm not saying a free-for-all is the way to go, but in general if someone is going to be hacking and slashing our public lands anyway, I'd rather it be for renewable energy.
Hopefully by the time these big projects get started, more distributed generation will be in place so fewer of them are needed anyway.
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 3:06 am
03 Jul 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 3:31 am
03 Jul 2008
And honestly, this is a false choice. We need BOTH.
I agree that local and individual power generation is better. Duh!
I agree that large corporations take advantage of the people. Duh!
I agree that endangering the sustainability of a species is immoral. Duh!
I agree that reasonable environmental impact studies have to be done. Duh!
But if you look at the raw power needs, even with the changing of lifestyles and efficiencies, that include replacing BOTH oil AND coal, I think you will find that we need generation locally and at large plants, just to make enough. Unless some unforeseen tech is around the corner.
It is immature, and according to a desert ecologist/specialist here on the Grist boards, inaccurate to portray the Southwest deserts as not having some redundancy (species-wise) and ability to support some shaded areas.
This is an interesting intellectual debate we are having, but you and I both know that BOTH local AND central power are going to happen. Lets do it smartly.
The goal for many of us here is to not be purist, living in a romantic fantasy with white robes, but simply in a sustainable relationship with the biosphere.
Hippo wallows and beaver dams and fire ants all have their environmental impacts and we will too as a fellow animal. But the real story is about sustainability.
If shade from solar facilities causes ecological collapse or extinction of a species or poisons ground water in a desert please let me know and I will join you in a protest of that facility existing.
Please don't offer false choices. Lets all be smart and holistic about this and eschew our 1990's "Ishmael" masturbation fantasy.
Permalink
jhaygood Posted 3:40 am
03 Jul 2008
Short version here:
http://www.cadesertco.org/
These "green" projects aren't green at all. And as another commenter mentioned, we are fighting the Greenpath and Sunlink projects here in California for this reason. These projects get approved by the public thinking they are environmentally responsible, when in fact they are perpetuating a centralized energy system, owned and doled out by major corporations, and transmitted (inefficiently) across pristine land, nature preserves, and private property to get to major population centers, that in our case in southern California are perfect sites for solar in the first place.
These massive projects are classic nimby thinking (who cares if the desert gets trashed anyway?) when the rroftops of L.A. would be a FAR better location for solar. They even provide shade on the roofs and reduce cooling needs, as we found out when we installed our panels.
People need to really look at these projects and look at the REAL impacts, and not get sucked into this "hey it's solar, it's good" thinking that will lead to irreversible environmental and economic damage.
Info on the projects here in SoCal here:
http://www.cadesertco.org/
Permalink
infp Posted 5:01 am
03 Jul 2008
Permalink
JoeyJoeJoe Posted 5:22 am
03 Jul 2008
We have an energy-hungry country of 300 million and every form of energy comes with warts. Localized generation and distribution should be part of the equation, as should aggressive conservation, as should <gasp> large-scale renewable generation.
I think it's a matter of thoughtful resource stewardship to maintain the correct balance. I don't trust the current administration with this problem, but hope and expect that the next administration will make better choices. Limited and tightly regulated solar farms in the desert under the stewardship of a government that knows what its doing is not a bad bargain.
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 7:08 am
03 Jul 2008
"If shade from solar facilities causes ecological collapse or extinction of a species or poisons ground water in a desert please let me know and I will join you in a protest of that facility existing."
You seem to have the misconception that the plants and the bunnies will still exist beneath the solar collectors. This is not what happens. Rather, the entire area is scraped bare. See this image of the existing solar facility at Kramer Junction in the Mojave Desert.
As to water, the solar collectors do require washing, and where will that water come from, in the desert? Which riparian areas will suffer because of this groundwater pumping?
And desert plants do have value, even if you only value them as carbon sinks. The Mojave Desert was recently shown to have the same carbon-storing capacity as some temperate forests (partly due to the microbiotic crusts that exist even where few plants grow). Would you suggest clear-cutting forests in Oregon and Washington and replacing them with solar panels? Even if it were sunny enough, I think you'd agree this would be absurd and counter-productive.
If the facility is far from existing transmission lines, how much impact will those new lines have, how many resources (think open-pit copper mines) will be used, how many greenhouse gases will be released in this construction?
In fact, the EIR on the Sunrise Powerlink shows that this 150-mile power line will cause greater greenhouse gas emissions than would be saved by the renewable energy it is promoted to carry. (We know, however, that it will only carry a small fraction of renewable energy.)
Those are the sorts of questions an environmental review is made to answer, and we need to know those answers ahead of time. There probably are some spots in the Mojave that are appropriate for solar facilities -- close enough to existing transmission, already disturbed, etc. Part of the environmental review should be to identify those spots. Instead, the solar industry's attitude is: "Hey, we're green, why do we have to follow environmental laws?"
Also, please show me the coal-fired power plant that will be decommissioned as a result of these solar plants. Solar energy used to run residential pool pumps (which are in some cases the biggest electricity users in houses with pools) and to cool houses with insufficient insulation is not green.
Efficiency and conservation first, local solar second, distant solar third.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 7:16 am
03 Jul 2008
This will probably end up in the courts.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 7:47 am
03 Jul 2008
You seem to have the misconception that the plants and the bunnies will still exist beneath the solar collectors. This is not what happens. Rather, the entire area is scraped bare.
You're right, that was a misconception of mine. I was imagining the wind farm here near Palm Springs. Brush and bunnies do exist among those.
And desert plants do have value, even if you only value them as carbon sinks.
I saw that recently as well. Then the math will have to be done about how much CO2 is displaced by the solar-plant or the native ground. And perhaps the whole way the solar-plants are designed has to be re-drawn.
Throwing the baby out with the bath water may not be wise here. Creative design and changing technique has changed everything from airplanes to surgeon's tools. Maybe the mirrors need to be on stilts, maybe they need to have huge gaps between rows -- I don't know. But there are thousands of examples in history where a re-design has changed the whole game.
If the facility is far from existing transmission lines, how much impact will those new lines have, how many resources (think open-pit copper mines) will be used, how many greenhouse gases will be released in this construction?
In fact, the EIR on the Sunrise Powerlink shows that this 150-mile power line will cause greater greenhouse gas emissions than would be saved by the renewable energy it is promoted to carry.
Really? For what length of time is that being measured. That is difficult to believe. Perhaps that particular plant is a bad idea, but doesnt mean another plant in another location is not a good idea.
Those are the sorts of questions an environmental review is made to answer,
I have never been against a real review. On the contrary. And any company that said "why do we have to follow environmental laws" deserves a swift kick in the nuts.
It sounds like we actually have a significant amount of overlap in our ideas about this.
Also, please show me the coal-fired power plant that will be decommissioned as a result of these solar plants.
When alternative energy is up and running at large capacity and cost LESS than coal per Kilowatt? And throw in carbon taxes on top of that? Are you kidding me? Coal plants will be shutting down everywhere! I'm willing to bet cash on that.
Efficiency and conservation first, local solar second, distant solar third.
Ideally, yes. But there is a 100% chance we will need all three of those.
Permalink
HiTension Posted 9:19 am
03 Jul 2008
One tricky thing about transmission lines is that federal prohibits reserving use of a transmission line for any particular type of energy, therefore the only ways to make a judgment about the likely blend of renewable and fossil fuel/nuc that will be on a new transmission line are to (1) undertake economic modeling that can estimate what types of generators are given economic advantage by the line; and (2) to look at the likelihood that a sufficient amount of proposed renewable energy generation plants will be built and approved before fossil fuel/nuc power plants are permitted and that the renewable energy will be economically competitive given foreseeable cost structures.
For example, if a proposed transmission line starts right near a fossil fuel development zone (such as the coal fields of North Dakota) and ends near a major load (say Minneapolis), there are no planned substations along the route for connection of other generators and the line's capacity could be used by planned fossil fuel plants or fossil fuel plants that could be quickly built, then it would be almost certain that the line is for fossil fuel-fired power.
Where this gets gray is where such a line includes substations that could accept renewable energy and some renewable energy capacity is proposed or possible in the vicinity of these substations, but the government permitting agency is just as likely to permit the construction of new fossil fuel/nuc plants as renewable energy plants or the renewable energy plants will not be queued early enough to have much of the line's capacity. In such situations, economic and grid modeling can help predict the blend of energy on the line and/or help determine the "break even" point where the transmission line actually results in a net decrease in carbon emissions. Such modeling can at least help us pressure government permitting agencies to limit or deprioritize fossil fuel development so that renewable energy is given first crack at using the line. Unfortunately, some agencies talk a good piece about renewable energy but then end up doing the wrong thing. This all gets much more complicated when transmission lines cross state and/or international borders.
Without a clear understanding of how a proposed line will function in the grid (which is a complicated technical question) and full knowledge of the situation and other energy options, most people just have uninformed opinions that are not particularly valuable to debates. Therefore, it is incumbent on advocates to work closely with transmission and power engineers and economists and to examine the merits of these situations very closely. As with many things, snap judgments from afar can do more harm than good, and those with good intentions can unintentionally do a lot of damage. There are many ways the fossil fuel industry can game this system. It is true that reliance on local renewable energy installations instead of transmission lines substantially reduces the risk of not getting the renewable energy you want.
Thanks for listening to this and to each other!
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:31 am
03 Jul 2008
If transmission is one of the main issues then what if a centralized solar-plant is used to only produce hydrogen for large trucks, trains, ect.
Even if local generation powers all of our personal electric cars and buildings, the heavy machinery, trucking, trains, and other large craft still need a more robust fuel than just batteries (I assume an 18 wheeler or a locomotive would need a liquid or gaseous fuel) . Why couldn't that be hydrogen produced from a solar-plant?
Still, just as with refineries, train and truck transport would need to come in and move the hydrogen to markets. It should be near something like the Interstate 10 or 40 or 80 corridor in the Western U.S. In fact, even if a pipeline were needed, it could follow the Interstate HWY.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:38 am
03 Jul 2008
Now we are getting somewhere.
How many acres are just the easements of highways in the Southwest U.S.?
Imagine not disturbing any significant new land but setting up a line of panels and a transmission line along the entire easements of I-10 between El San Antonio and Los Angeles.
That could be pretty elegant, no?
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 11:33 am
03 Jul 2008
But the dithering around described in the article makes me think that the only consideration being given to solar power is how can a profit be milked from such a project, not what would be the system which gives the greatest good to the greatest number of citizens at the least cost to the environment in which we all must live.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 12:19 pm
03 Jul 2008
... what they are doing in Germany: using the already disturbed lands of the highway easements as a location for loooooong thin lines of solar panels.
Really?
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html
Permalink
ronwagn Posted 12:48 pm
03 Jul 2008
If we delay cleaner approaches because we are too pure, we will lose the battle for cleaner ways to go. We will then end up with nuclear power,and all the thousands of years of dangers that go with that. Of course we might not survive it at all.
Green extremism can lead to big oil and big nuclear and coal perpetuating their monopolies.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:15 pm
03 Jul 2008
Please update us on German solar PV
Ask you shall receive. Here is a great video clip.
http://web.mac.com/cjohnsonla/Christopher_S._Johnson_Webs ...
Permalink
christophersj Posted 5:17 pm
03 Jul 2008
Permalink
catman Posted 11:24 pm
03 Jul 2008
Mega power generation facilities cannot be the answer to our energy needs.
The production of electricity can and should be done in a small way everywhere such as the German plan. Every interstate and every roof can be a collector. After all, the environmental damage has already been done building and paving.
There's nothing 'green' about destroying nature to save nature.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:10 am
04 Jul 2008
Conservation with geo heat exchange heating/cooling and plugin hybrid vehicles can replace the most of the rest of the energy we now use.
Biogas from waste and organic agriculture can reverse GHG buildup and actually get it to go down.
Natural gas from coal can power the transition to 100% renewable power. Concentrating solar power on factory roofs can supply manufacturing process heat/electricity and backup the grid.
Distributed solid oxide fuel cell/turbines running on natural gas eventually going to all biogas can backup the grid too.
Then there is wave and current power from sources like the Gulf Stream. And offshore desalinization and energy producing floating platforms. And biogas waste digestors that recycle water. And water conserving composting toilets and drip irrigation.
We really don't need to mess up anymore wilderness land. Put CSP on factory roofs and over the land around factories. Forget BLM land.
This energy revolution needs to get going yesterday. Israel is about to "bomb, bomb, bomb..Iran" (as McCain sings it), Iran will counterattack, justifying (in the minds of the insane) a bushco invasion.
What will gas cost then? 10 bucks per gallon and rise 10 cents per month thereafter? Sending inflation on a tear.
It will not help to impeach bush/cheney then, even if it could happen. The destruction of the US and world economy is imminent. Just what bin laden predicted. Good job bushie!
At least it will force an energy/ag revolution. But we will all wish we listened to Feingold and Kucinich and took legal action against bush/cheney when we could.
This will be a depression era, bubble gum and bailing wire revolution though, out of economic necessity. It would be easier without the national bankruptcy a new oil war will surely impell.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:16 am
04 Jul 2008
Of course it's not as bad to generate electricity from solar or wind as it is from coal, nuclear, or dam(n)s. As Spider said, "if someone is going to be hacking and slashing our public lands anyway, I'd rather it be for renewable energy." The problem is, this is a false and needless choice of which destruction of natural lands is worse, and I don't except the basic premise.
As many, if not most, posters here have said, electricity should be generated locally. Add limits on use to the amount generated, with a few rare exceptions for true necessities, and the problem is solved. For example, in Berkeley, California, which is almost as foggy as San Francisco, homes can generate all their electricity with their own rooftop solar panels. Backup power could be provided by wind generators along interstate 80 on the west edge of Berkeley and a batter storage system. As Catman said, "There's nothing 'green' about destroying nature to save nature" by placing large solar or wind projects in natural areas.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:53 am
04 Jul 2008
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:05 am
04 Jul 2008
You do realize we're talking about deserts, right?
There will be no hacking and slashing involved.
If anything, they are mainly concerned with water use, and paving.
Here for instance is an old style conventional Solar Thermal power plant.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Solarp ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:10 am
04 Jul 2008
Well that probably wouldn't be there if it weren't for the evaporated water coming from the power plant.
If anything, Solar thermal power plants are chosen for areas with the least rainfall.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:20 pm
04 Jul 2008
Solar on buildings with 10 sun concentration and heat cogeneration is cheaper and it is already distributed, needing less investment in transmission capacity.
CSP should only be installed on factories.
Wind is the way to go for extra power from large installations. Plenty of farm land is available for wind and it won't disturb farming. There is also plenty of wind offshore. Wave and current energy offshore too.
The additional demand reduction from conservation and extra power from biogas from the waste stream seal the distributed deal.
Solar covering square miles of wilderness is not a good idea, desert or not.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:36 pm
04 Jul 2008
Most people don't like living near areas which get 300+ days of no clouds.
Cloudy skies mean no power.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:01 pm
04 Jul 2008
Water, that's a big probnlem for desert living. With renewable energy that can be recycled.
You can see it, huge electric exports from the desert rooftops, and from plains wind, and coastal wind, wave, and current power offshore.
Maybe even huge biogas power from agricultural areas? Exported on gas pipelines.
I really like CSP, but for factory roofs.
On another note, but similar. There was a very nice through wall solar cooker design featured at the Midwest Renewable Energy Fair. I think with heat storage salt in a hollow metal container this obven could cook for hours after the sun goes down. And the waste heat could heat hot water.
Cooking is a fairly energy intensive process, this could do it with solar.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:15 pm
04 Jul 2008
Not only the day to day reliability.
But the day-night reliability with thermal heat storage makes a big difference.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:38 pm
04 Jul 2008
If the big grid power use, heating/cooling is stored for the daily cycle that evens out electric power demand. Heat/cool when excess solar or wind is available, store the heat/cold.
I know factory heating/cooling is a huge grid demand too. So power that with CSP oh the roof. And store high temp solar furnace heat for grid backup turbine generation.
Plugin vehicles are a really big storage element too. But still each building ought to have enough batteries for a day or so of low power emergency lights and internet.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:02 pm
04 Jul 2008
Your posts strongly indicate that you've either never seen a desert or didn't bother to notice what lives there if you did. A "desert" is an ecosystem whose rainfall is limited to ten inches or less annually. It is NOT devoid of life. Regardless of what would be destroyed by placing large solar projects in deserts, the fact remains that those deserts will either be destroyed, which is most likely, or will at least be greatly denuded.
Humans have taken over far too much of this planet already. What little has been left alone so far needs to remain that way, including deserts and offshore areas that people want to use for wind generators.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:11 pm
04 Jul 2008
We need a new source of cheap power NOW. Maybe you missed it, but the world is going through an energy crisis. OK, you don't care. But what you are too obtuse to pay attention to is that if there is a global economic collapse, humans will devour EVERYTHING in their path voraciously in order to survive. Think about that for a minute.
Permalink
Rainbow Posted 9:23 pm
04 Jul 2008
It seems to me that this attitude is what got us into the mess we are in to begin with. It seems to me we should care at least as much about reducing our demands for power as we do about trying to sustain what isn't and probably shouldn't be sustainable.
I am doing what I can to learn & implement ways of reducing my personal impact & demands for energy/power. I'd rather start now than wait til it's no longer optional. Kind of like planning ahead for an emergency, but if enough of us were to start preparing, we might actually postpone the "emergency" and in the process, find a better way of life.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:00 am
05 Jul 2008
If this is our fear, there is a simple solution. Let's give each company or research group the chance to "prove out" on a limited footprint ... 160 acres seems like enough.
They'll have their chance to show the efficacy and efficiency of their design, as well as their management of environmental issues.
Let the winners scale, and ... it wouldn't actually hurt much if among those millions of acres a few 160 acre test plots became ghost towns.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:10 am
05 Jul 2008
If one is going to make a large centralized solar plant in the desert, a real world impact evaluation has to happen that weighs the pros and cons of habitat disturbance vs. carbon free energy, reducing global warming and thus reducing large scale environmental problems.
new studies have shown that desert crust and brush are a significant carbon sink, and some solar installations scrape all of this away.
Because we want to replace all coal AND petro-fuels at once, rooftop solar and energy conservation alone are not likely to be enough to provide society's needs.
The video posted above shows Germany with solar arrays with vegetation and grazing animals in harmony. It also shows the use of long stretches of already disturbed highway easements, bordering the road, used as a place to run solar panels and transmission lines.
It is my belief that there is a compromise that can be had on this issue.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:23 am
05 Jul 2008
Make it so, Ghandi said it, "Become the change you wish to see in the world". Obama seems to be leading us in that direction.
Permalink