- ‹ previous
- 847 of 1538
- next ›
Forecast for Solar: Cloudy
Now that the Bureau of Land Management is deferring solar projects on public land, the forecast for solar energy seems a bit cloudy. What happened?
Just over a year ago, the BLM was actively encouraging solar projects to be shuttled through in a "timely manner." Then it teamed up with the Department of Energy "to assess the environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with solar energy development."
So what are the potentially negative environmental impacts of solar installations?
For starters, the BLM has identified these three: energy use and accompanying emissions required for manufacturing plants, hazardous materials used in production, and land use disrupting natural habitats and wildlife. But solar tends to come out favorably when pitted against building, say, another coal plant.
And with all this talk of a recession, why is the BLM trying to stunt an industry that's creating thousands of new jobs across the country? The 2006-2007 solar installation boom generated 6,000 new jobs and injected $2 billion into the U.S. economy.
The BLM flip-flopping wouldn't have anything to do with an administration hand protecting traditional energy industries, would it?
—Joyce Tang
The solar industry is now facing the same environmental laws and regulations all users of pubic lands have faced the pact few decades. Thousands of acres have been closed to off road vehicles, oil and gas development and graszing reduced on the lands due to environmental studies. No use,no matter how "good" it is is exempt from the laws
This is good. Nobody is above the environmental rules. Since King Coal is an old established industry, we will be depending upon it for years to come. Alternative energy will take 30 years because the environmental rules will tie it up in court for that long. We do not want to rush to untried alternative energy until they have been thoroughly tested and each site thoroughly reviewed so some slug is not endangered. SoCal got its water cut by 30 percent over some little fish.
It shouldn't be that difficult for solar applications to comply with environmental requirements. And if solar applications can be environmentally friendly or another way of trashing the ecosystem, we should certainly demand the former and reject the latter. I don't see how the BLM is in any position to raise issues about manufacturing plants. I don't think the manufacturers of solar equipment are trying to build manufacturing facilities on public land. Likewise, BLM isn't in a position to regulate the hazardous materials used in production. That's the domain of the EPA or OSHA or some other bureaucracy. So that leaves only habitat disruption, which should be simple to regulate. We've been building everything from oil wells to observatories on public land for a century or more, not to mention running everything from cattle to snowmobiles across these lands. If the BLM can't articulate the rules for solar installations that minimize damage to habitat and wildlife, they shouldn't be in business. What the hell else do they do?
First of all, other countries (e.g.,Germany) are years ahead of the US on alternative energy. And they have government incentives in place to make start-up costs manageable. The US is 30 years behind the times. This was no accident!
breezi, Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Über alles in der Welt. breezi, you have it so right, but unfortunately, we are not Germany here, but America, hence, forget it. We are Coal and oil.
The reason they are 'studying' the effect of solar arrays on BLM lands for two years is simple. This administration is entirely in the tank with the oil/coal industry. Nothing else.
There is a huge solar array study site in Northern California (North of San Francisco!) that has been there for fifteen or more years. It is the old-style huge panels, and they grow crops underneath it. Can't be doing too much damage, can it?
The new technology allows solar panels to be printed on anything - even flexible materials (like the sunshade films you put on windows!)
This is just like every other policy of the Bushco Administration - designed to put more money in the pockets of him and his cronies and if everyone else has to suffer, well too damn bad.