Feds place a moratorium on new solar projects on public land

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: techs
People may have forgotten this was done by BUSH administration. Which is so dedicated to environmental protection they won't open emails from their own envrionmental protection agency.
Nope, this is to push nuclear power by screwing the small companies which build solar generation in favor of the big corporations who want to get government subsidies of tens of billions of dollars for nuke plants.
After all, why have solar power competing on a fair basis when you can have government subsidized nuclear power?

Solar power is heavily subsidized.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Aahhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... *gasp* hahahahahahahahahaahahaaa

Good fucking god...

"We need solar to save the environment!"
"But first, we need to evaulate solar's negative impact on the environment."

Laugh or cry... laugh or cry... I can't decide.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

There is NO shortage of oil supply at this time.

as long as the price can float i'm not sure how there can be a shortage in an economic sense.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Robor
I am one of those who says WTF to this 2 year moratorium on solar projects and no to drilling ANWAR and coastal regions. Why? Because solar (and other alternative) energy helps us move away from oil while drilling ANWAR and coastal regions only prolong the inevitable.

In the meantime, the poor and the middle class get squeezed like a stress ball being held by Tweak from South Park on a caffeine binge with the high energy prices.

There's no reason why we can't pursue both. It isn't an either/or proposition.

ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil. Drill all you want, just don't fool yourself or fall for these little political games.

ANWR by itself, no. ANWR in combination with off-shore drilling and possibly the oil shale (I know it's not there yet but there are blocks being put up that is making it more difficult than it need be)? Perhaps.

It may not be the difference between $2 gas and $4 gas. But given the current situation where demand for oil worldwide is putting serious pressure on the supply to keep up, it could mean the difference between $4 gas and $8-$10 gas.

Uhhh .... No.

From our good friends at the EIA:

Impacts of Increased Access to Oil Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

Impacts of Increased Access to Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf

And to further refute your misinformation:

Oil and Natural Gas Resources Available for Leasing and Development (pdf)


What is interesting is that by the end of 2004 the US reported its lowest monthly oil production in 55 years - since that time US oil production has increased 30%.

100s of billions of those dollars made by BigOilCo (your money) is going to stock buybacks and new refineries - in China and India.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: techs
People may have forgotten this was done by BUSH administration. Which is so dedicated to environmental protection they won't open emails from their own envrionmental protection agency.
Nope, this is to push nuclear power by screwing the small companies which build solar generation in favor of the big corporations who want to get government subsidies of tens of billions of dollars for nuke plants.
After all, why have solar power competing on a fair basis when you can have government subsidized nuclear power?

Solar power is heavily subsidized.

Nope. Well, at least not in power plants. It is subsidized for homeowners who install it.

 

[Thump553]

Interesting that the fed government has allowed-for decades- grazing on public lands (essentially at greatly subsidized rates), logging, mining, oil drilling, etc.-all below market rates but they absolutely bar solar power development there for the next two years?

I guess the solar lobby & us ordinary folks don't spread out enough bucks and jobs to politicians as compared to the oil industry.

And yes, there is a solar subsidy in the US-not too heavy, and pretty ineffective because it is set to expire within the year & Congress is only talking about a year to year extension anyway. If you are going to build a power plant, that is going to take several years-so any subsidy you can't count on is a huge gamble & little motivation. Germany & Spain are way ahead of the curve compared to the US in promoting solar power.

 

[kage69]

As a seperate issue I find it amusing the people who are complaining about this mortorium on permits to use 1 million acres of govt land for this are probably against drilling 2000 acres of tundra in ANWR.

I find your "seperate issue" (sic) a classic example of your already established penchant to make shaky comparisons. You're attempting to set both areas at equal value, when one produces free energy with zero emissions, and there other involves the extraction and transportation of a debatable amount of crude in a zone containing endangered bears, caribou, cetaceans, etc. One is an attempt to hold onto a resource we need to drop like a bad habit, and the other will save us untold millions in upkeep and infrastructure costs. I've seen your posts in other science oriented threads, and while we disagree mostly, I still would have thought you capable of noting the clear differences between the two sites. Apples to aardvarks someone said recently, well here it is. 🙂

We need to get serious about this, not think of more reasons to prolong being lazy and consumptive. I'm all for building with nature in mind, but sometimes nature just has to take a punch. Nothing I have to explain at length for Bush approving conservatives though, amiright? :laugh:

The timing on this seems does seem a wee bit fishy. We live in a day where new comers to the energy market just magically lose multiple, main data backbones at the worst times. Some suspicion is warranted, I feel, as this government has shown itself largely unconcerned with the environment in the past. Now all of a sudden they're concerned about a ground squirrel?

ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil. Drill all you want, just don't fool yourself or fall for these little political games.

Exactly. ANWR is for the firms, not the people.

 

[babylon5]

Nuclear Power and Coal lobbyists have been quite busy paying off politicans

 

[Kuragami]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Robor
I am one of those who says WTF to this 2 year moratorium on solar projects and no to drilling ANWAR and coastal regions. Why? Because solar (and other alternative) energy helps us move away from oil while drilling ANWAR and coastal regions only prolong the inevitable.

In the meantime, the poor and the middle class get squeezed like a stress ball being held by Tweak from South Park on a caffeine binge with the high energy prices.

There's no reason why we can't pursue both. It isn't an either/or proposition.

Everything I hear/read says drilling ANWAR and our coasts would be years away from providing any relief and even then would be a drop in a bucket. If that's the case, why waste the money/time/resources?

People, who think they are well informed, tell me how our energy issues will smooth out as new oil reserves are added. While it's true that several mega fields have been found recently what many fail to realize is that it takes roughly half a decade to bring any oil field to full capacity. That's a heck of a lag time between finding oil and placing it on the market.

Plus the vast majority of domestic oil reserves are sent overseas or not taped at all in the US. That's because of the oil for debt system. They can't run the scam if they flood the US market with cheap domestic US oil as it would stop the cash flow and collapse the currency along with the price of oil. There are ways to fix this of course but they won't touch that with a six foot pole.

 

[Kuragami]

There is something else. While technically it officially doesn't exist the Gull island oil and gas reserve is supposed to be one of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. To put it into perspective it's supposed to be larger than the reserves of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. That's big. Even BP, who runs the field, had its President state that if they were allowed to drill anywhere they could provide for the US's energy needs, scaled to increasing energy demand, for 40 years.

While I may be wrong it seems to me that BP was referring to the supposedly non-existent oil reserve under Gull island. People blame oil companies for the price but keeping in mind what I said above, I'll let the enormity of what the President of BP suggested sink in.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I just drove through the Nevada/California desert between LA and Vegas last week. The only wildlife I saw that could be impacted is dried up plants.

Did you call out? Most desert species hide. Press the call button on the base of the nearest yucca.

 

[BoomerD]

Anyone who believes Bush did this for the environment has been drinking too much Kool-Aid...

YES, the construction of such a large solar farm COULD cause environmental damage, as could any kind of construction project, but once it's operational, the only real impact should be too much shade. 😀
OK, OK, I have no doubt that they will go in and kill/remove lots of native plant life and change grading of the natural soils. This could result in erosion issues, loss of native animal life, etc. but if Bush is doing it, it's NOT to protect the environment, it's to protect someone's bottom line. Oil companies, electrical/gas companies, etc., MAYBE delaying this project is to give leverage to some currently unpopular project or bill. "Let me build those unregulated nuke plants and I'll let you have your solar farm."

 

[KlokWyze]

lol. This is isn't even odd. This makes perfect sense when compared to the past 7 years. It's not like anyone will be held accountable for jokes, ahem*, I mean policies like this. Regardless though, the solar-energy sector WILL take off. A bunch of sell-outs in suits cannot stop it.

 

[MadRat]

I'd rather have $4 gas than $7 gas in two years.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I just drove through the Nevada/California desert between LA and Vegas last week. The only wildlife I saw that could be impacted is dried up plants.

Is this you?

 

[ericlp]

Your corrupted tax dollars at work!

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: babylon5
Nuclear Power and Coal lobbyists have been quite busy paying off politicans

Don't forget big oil.

Cheap(er) electricity (no matter how it is generated) will eventually directly compete with oil in the energy / fuel market.

Solar is just the new game in town. It gained lots of momentum really fast, now it's time to slow it down, just before it starts to become competitive.

 

[OokiiNeko]

I'd have to agree. The footprint of solar energy plants is enormous - significantly greater than the footprint for a standard power plant (coal/gas/nuclear). So think of tens of thousands of acres covered in solar panels in a pristine desert environment. That is a huge environmental impact on native plant and animal life.

I strongly disagree with your statement.

Coal/gas/nuclear all turn water into steam. Steam is then used to drive turbines which drive generators producing electricity.
While solar "panels" may take up many times the footprint to produce the equivalent electrical output, solar "boilers" would not.
The turbine/generator part of the equation is proven and reliable. It is how you produce the steam that can be made zero emission.

Wikipedia

Why this thread is locked into solar "panels" is a little strange. Where da geeks at?

🙂

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko

I'd have to agree. The footprint of solar energy plants is enormous - significantly greater than the footprint for a standard power plant (coal/gas/nuclear). So think of tens of thousands of acres covered in solar panels in a pristine desert environment. That is a huge environmental impact on native plant and animal life.

I strongly disagree with your statement.

Coal/gas/nuclear all turn water into steam. Steam is then used to drive turbines which drive generators producing electricity.
While solar "panels" may take up many times the footprint to produce the equivalent electrical output, solar "boilers" would not.
The turbine/generator part of the equation is proven and reliable. It is how you produce the steam that can be made zero emission.

Wikipedia

Why this thread is locked into solar "panels" is a little strange. Where da geeks at?

🙂

Why? That is my point, we are covering thousands of acres in panels. Sure the turbines take up little space. So what, they take up little space in a coal/gas plant as well.

The other thing I did not mention is the amount of water necessary for these solar plants. Again, in a desert environment where there are already water problems, taking more groundwater or diverting existing rivers to provide sufficient water for a solar plant to turn into steam is another major environmental problem to overcome.

I am not against solar or any other energy producing method. I just want to make sure that the arguments that have traditionally been used against coal/gas/nuclear are in many cases the exact same ones that can be made against solar, wind or geothermal.

I remember a huge uproar I think it was in National Geographic a fwe years back about a single smokestack from a coal-fired plant showing on the horizon and how that disrupted the beauty of the desert environment.

Well how about looking at 20 square miles of nothing but solar panels.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: kage69

ANWR will do nothing to lower the price of oil. Drill all you want, just don't fool yourself or fall for these little political games.

Exactly. ANWR is for the firms, not the people.

last i heard the firms don't really want ANWR anyway. there are cheaper places with better production for them to drill

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: OokiiNeko

I'd have to agree. The footprint of solar energy plants is enormous - significantly greater than the footprint for a standard power plant (coal/gas/nuclear). So think of tens of thousands of acres covered in solar panels in a pristine desert environment. That is a huge environmental impact on native plant and animal life.

I strongly disagree with your statement.

Coal/gas/nuclear all turn water into steam. Steam is then used to drive turbines which drive generators producing electricity.
While solar "panels" may take up many times the footprint to produce the equivalent electrical output, solar "boilers" would not.
The turbine/generator part of the equation is proven and reliable. It is how you produce the steam that can be made zero emission.

Wikipedia

Why this thread is locked into solar "panels" is a little strange. Where da geeks at?

🙂

Why? That is my point, we are covering thousands of acres in panels. Sure the turbines take up little space. So what, they take up little space in a coal/gas plant as well.

The other thing I did not mention is the amount of water necessary for these solar plants. Again, in a desert environment where there are already water problems, taking more groundwater or diverting existing rivers to provide sufficient water for a solar plant to turn into steam is another major environmental problem to overcome.

I am not against solar or any other energy producing method. I just want to make sure that the arguments that have traditionally been used against coal/gas/nuclear are in many cases the exact same ones that can be made against solar, wind or geothermal.

I remember a huge uproar I think it was in National Geographic a fwe years back about a single smokestack from a coal-fired plant showing on the horizon and how that disrupted the beauty of the desert environment.

Well how about looking at 20 square miles of nothing but solar panels.

A 4x5 mile area can be placed fairly easily outside the normal beaten path to solve the aesthetics issue.

The water used for generation can be recycled; a new source of water does not need to be provided continually. Run the used steam through condensors and/or ground loop piping.

the amount of additional water required will be for the support facilities, not hte generating facilities.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: dphantom
-snip-
The other thing I did not mention is the amount of water necessary for these solar plants. Again, in a desert environment where there are already water problems, taking more groundwater or diverting existing rivers to provide sufficient water for a solar plant to turn into steam is another major environmental problem to overcome.

Can they not use closed systems so actual water use is very low?

IDK, I'm just asking.

Fern

 

[frostedflakes]

Check out the 45 new nuclear plants thread, we've been discussing water usage to death in it. 😛

If wet-cooling is used on the condensers, water requirement can be significant (according to one article I read, similar to that of a coal plant). Dry-cooling the condensers wouldn't use any water, but it isn't nearly as efficient as wet-cooling, especially with high ambient temperature. So it's a bit of a trade-off. Then I think minimal water is used for various other activities, such as replenishing the steam cycle (even though it's a "closed" system, small amounts leak out I guess), washing mirrors, etc.

Running the pipes through the ground may be a good option as well, it seems to work well for ground source heat pumps at least.

 

[OokiiNeko]

Why? That is my point, we are covering thousands of acres in panels.

Just to clarify, solar boilers use mirrors, not panels. And the area required for a solar boiler and its mirrors are much less than the equivalent producing solar panels.

I just want to make sure that the arguments that have traditionally been used against coal/gas/nuclear are in many cases the exact same ones that can be made against solar, wind or geothermal.

So you are saying that the solar boiler plant has as much environmental impact as the coal fired plant?

BTW, show me one geothermal plant producing commercially available electricity.
Now see how long geothermal has been "in development".

🙂