«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»
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
Comments
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.
Posted by: Gore from Coal land Tenn. on 07/02/08 at 6:18 AM Respond
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?
Posted by: lawyerfan on 07/02/08 at 1:34 PM Respond
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!
Posted by: breezi on 07/03/08 at 6:29 AM Respond
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.
Posted by: Otto on 07/08/08 at 10:12 AM Respond
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.
Posted by: lokywoky on 07/30/08 at 9:16 PM Respond
ARCHIVE
RECENT COMMENTS
Penguins Threatened in Antarctic, Dying in South America (3)
Student wrote:
Cleo said "If you disregard the penguin species, you disre...
[more]
Hack-A-Vote (2)
R.Stolle wrote:
While I agree with Fair Trade that Diebold probably has a ...
[more]
Asheville, NC is Out of Gas (70)
Kaos Melody wrote:
This is no one person's fault. although I have never voted...
[more]
Economy Screws Climate (5)
Lars the Viking wrote:
In 1991, Norway became one of the first countries in the w...
[more]
Study: Chocolate and Alcohol Are Bad for Your Planet (15)
Dr. Webster wrote:
Nutz said "eco-shite." The word "shxxx" is one of the for...
[more]
Lead Shot Kills Long After The Bullet Stops (4)
bob mcdonnald wrote:
I do agree with youre statistics and your concern for all ...
[more]
Study: Toxic PBDEs Are 10 Times Higher in California (5)
Bryson wrote:
WA banned PBDE's a few years ago; we were the first govern...
[more]
Baby Polar Bear Cub, "Cute Knut," Wanted Dead by Activists (32)
savannah wrote:
Ok, first of all, i do not even know how anybody, even a c...
[more]
Financial Risk-Taking Tied to Testosterone (7)
Willy wrote:
hahaha, you racist to blame testosterum, because as Shanno...
[more]
Are Fluorescents Really Better? (8)
SocraticGadfly wrote:
Julia also overlooks that, over the past several years, CF...
[more]
Movable Type 3.33


Posted by: J. M. Hughes on 07/02/08 at 5:59 AM Respond