There are currently no solar projects on any federal land

[lewdtenant]

"There are currently no solar projects on any federal land"

??!

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=8552104&ch=4226722&src=news

 

[D H]

A news article rather than a video would have been a good start. Even better would have been to acknowledge that environmental impacts are a valid concern. Instead, we get ""??!". Not a good start at all.

An even better start would have been not to start this at all, because the http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/us/03solar.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin".

This does raise an important question, though. Building a huge number of solar power plants is not all sweetness and light. Does the nationwide reduction in greenhouse gases trump the growing environmental destruction and hazardous waste problems entailed by a growing solar power industry?

 

[lewdtenant]

From your article:

Mr. Resch said the decision was important given that while the bureau managed to approve a considerable number of oil and gas leases on public land, it “had yet to lease a single acre of land to the solar industry.”

OK, so how do you explain that? That the oil and gas has no environmental impact, but solar does? Good one. I realize that solar is not all sweetness and light, but what I don't understand is how there has not been one single site approved for a solar project. How is that possible? It's almost as if our government says one thing and then does another...

 

[D H]

Stop with the hyperbole, please!

My main complaint about the original post was that you obviously did not even think or do your own research before posting. You posted a flipping video, which typically have a low information content and a high emotional content compared to a written news article, and your sole commentary was "??!" Not good for a scientific site.

Now we have something to talk about.

 

[lewdtenant]

do I not come as advertised..?

and should I not be semi-shocked at this story? I'm seriously asking..

 

[berkeman]

do I not come as advertised..?

and should I not be semi-shocked at this story? I'm seriously asking..

Semi-shocked at which story? The video (which I didn't watch -- I rarely watch posted videos), or the story DH was kind enough to find and link to? The story seems straightforward. The environmental impact reports on a new use of public land were going to hold up the permitting process -- nothing new about that in land use management.

It's an interesting story, and it sounds like things are going in the right direction now. Simple enough.

 

[russ_watters]

Right - what's the big deal here? Pretty much any new use of government land requires an environmental impact study. There is no reason to expect special exemptions for solar projects.

do I not come as advertised..?

Maybe, but please note that this is a serious site. We require our members to act with a certain level of maturity.

 

[taylaron]

I recently had an interview with Mike Davis, an associate lab director at PNNL in Washington. i asked him this exact question (for obvious reasons) and he gave the impression that 'if Americans can pay for their energy (which we can...kinda..) then there is no need for alternative energy programs'. needless to say i was shocked when he said this because I don't want to play $4.20 per gallon at the pump. he also said that he is not impressed with the way the government has handled this situation and said that 'we're not done yet..'.
another reason why the government doesn't have any real lasting programs based on alternative energy is because "The energy portion of the GDP in the USA is not very large" and he said that in order for the government to take it more seriously, he implied that this would have to increase in order to get more attention.

 

[mheslep]

... "The energy portion of the GDP in the USA is not very large" and he said that in order for the government to take it more seriously, he implied that this would have to increase in order to get more attention.

On its face this grossly incorrect. US GDP is ~$13 trillion. Oil alone is $1T with $800B imported. Add CNG and coal costs which together are roughly the same size as oil in annual BTUs, that is conservatively $1.7 trillion in fuel costs alone. Then add the rest of the industry - production / infrastructure / engineering. Ten percent of the economy is large, and energy cost effects everything else in the economy.

 

[taylaron]

either way he said that it needs to get even larger if the government is to take more action.
i do agree that 1.7 trillion dollars is a lot of money. certainly more than enough in my opinion to get some effort from the gov.

 

[russ_watters]

The OP was not about government financed solar projects, but...

The job of government is not to throw money at everyone's pet project (and finance that with taxes). The job of government is to do what is necessary and right to help the citizens where they really need the help. Financing solar power does not fit with that mission. The cost is far too high for the benefit.

 

[taylaron]

i don't know what OP is Russ but i definitely agree with your perspective on the government's part.

 

[russ_watters]

OP = opening post. The first post in the thread.

 

[Andre]

Nevertheless it remains interesting to see if solar power can provide a feasible niche in the total energy equation in the future, relaxing the pressure on energy surety and security.

But with that mindset, why would this thread be in the Earth forum?

 

[taylaron]

Nevertheless it remains interesting to see if solar power can provide a feasible niche in the total energy equation in the future, relaxing the pressure on energy surety and security.

But with that mindset, why would this thread be in the Earth forum?

beats me. i was directed here from an alternative energy thread i started...
---------------------

the government obviously needs to convince the land owners or forcefully take control of the portions of land that must be used for alternative energy (solar and wind,,,NG to)
"Sometimes what people want isn't always what is best for society"- Taylaron

heck, they'de be paid for their efforts if they can still use the land...im all for it.

 

[russ_watters]

But with that mindset, why would this thread be in the Earth forum?

The OP didn't make a point, so it is tough to tell. Perhaps the intent was to discuss environmental impact studies?

 

[taylaron]

the question is: "why isn't the government doing this already? obviously they would make money; which is essentially the first requirement for this kind of undertaking...
-people should be happy that the government is taking this kind of action. after all, its money coming out of their pocketbook to pay for the fuel they use every day.
*the citizens of the USA need to become accustomed to this kind of change regarding federal control of land. -possibly by force or taxes if they do not comply. =)

 

[DEMcMillan]

I noted your comment several days ago. In looking into solar electricity generation I came across a Wikipedia site about an MMA Renewable Ventures solar installation at Nellis AFB near Las Vegas. Their information there seems to undermine the report you cited. The economics should also be of interest to others.