Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Halts Solar Energy Projects Over Environment Fears
LOS ANGELES - The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants.
The Bureau of Land Management says the moratorium on solar proposals is needed to determine how a new generation of large-scale projects could affect plants and wildlife on the land it manages.
The move has angered some solar energy proponents who argue it could hold up the industry at a vital juncture, given the pressing need to secure alternative energy sources at a time of soaring oil prices. "This technology has been around for nearly three decades. advertisement
If there is an environmental concern, that can be addressed without putting a halt to this technology and helping to impact our greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental degradation from coal-fired and natural gas plants," said Brad Collins, executive director of the American Solar Energy Society.
He said the review appeared to be an arbitrary "road block" that contradicted "the stated goals of both presidential candidates, the stated goals of Congress and the American public." The Bureau of Land Management, which looks after 258 million acres of federal land, much of it flat, sun-baked terrain in the western US considered ideal for solar energy development, says the study is required by law and backed by environmental groups.
"Obviously the footprint from solar development is significant," said Celia Boddington, a BLM spokeswoman.
"(The solar plants) cover thousands of acres potentially, and we need to determine what the environmental consequences are of that, look at what it means when you spray the land with herbicides or remove vegetation." She said the BLM's solar programme was "completely new" and required a framework to be established.
The environmental assessment was being "fast-tracked". During the study, the BLM will not accept any new applications to lease public land for solar developments. But it insists it is "not holding industry up" and will continue to process 150 existing applications for roughly one million acres of federal land considered to have the best potential for solar development.
Together the proposed projects could produce as much as 70 billion watts of electricity, enough energy to power 20 million homes. Most of the applications were received during the past year and a half, Ms Boddington said.
"So it's still very, very new. The potential is there but we want to make sure we do it properly because the environmental impacts are potentially significant. This is exciting, it's a great opportunity but solar development has not yet been established commercially on a large scale."
Mr Collins argued the analysis could halt recent momentum in the domestic solar industry that has seen "a large number of international, large-scale players move their operations and headquarters" to the US and impact the growing field of "green collar jobs".
"It would be an example of taking a new industry and arbitrarily placing road blocks in the way to a transition to the safe, sustainable energy economy that everybody says they want."
© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2008
54 Comments so far
Show Allrare insight.................what about the plants and animals on mountain tops?
Given the control that the oil lobby has over this administration, I'm surprised - make that amazed - that such a move has not been taken before now.
Look for new restrictions on hybrid vehicles before Bush leaves office.
We are in the middle of a desperate struggle between the old petroleum economy and emerging new technologies which will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Those who have grown rich in the old economy are not going to go away quietly.
jj
"The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants."
What this means is two years to convince the "uneducated" that the democrats in congress are responsible for the high price of gas, because they're refusing to lift the ban on drilling for oil along our coasts and in Alaska lifted.
In eight years the government hasn't given a damn about anybody or anything, plant or animal, that gets in their way of mining for the almighty dollar. I would have laughed at the heading of this story - if it wasn't so heartwrenchingly sad.
jj has it right - "Those who have grown rich in the old economy are not going to go away quietly."
Was listening to callers on C-SPAN this morning. One guy mentioned capped oil wells in OK and asked how come we aren't using that gas. He or another caller also asked why, since the Alaskan pipeline belonged to us, why are we selling that oil to foreign countries. Good points.
Also points out exactly what will happen should those bans on coastal and Alaska drillings be lifted. Whatever oil to be found there will also be sold to foreign countries, while our prices at the pump continue to go up. Those guys are out for the money - period.
Ah,yes, Bullshit Land Management, owned and operated by Big Coal and Big Oil and, oh my, Big Gas.
This is the Bush/Conservative/Republican legacy - a government owned and operated by corporations, for corporations.
And won't the CEOs and the hedge fund managers and their political whores be oh so surprised when they're murdered in their beds by the people they've screwed over and destroyed. Oh me oh my.
Prince William Sound - now THAT is environmental destruction !
A Pox upon the Supreme Court for what they just allowed Big oil to get away with. Devastate and walk away - literally.
Solar Panels in the desert??? Yes, there is some "footprint" there. But, that is not what the meaning of environmental degradation IS. Humans are part of the ecosystem and we make footprints. The idea, is to make them as small and as few as possible. Clearly, these renewable energy developments (wind turbines, too) accomplish this necessary goal.
The very Administration which has wreaked more environmental destruction on the World than is humanly comprehendable is NOW developing a concience - ahhahahaha - Shoot Me!
- The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants.
How about putting a hold on all fossil fuel energy projects for two years so we can study the environmental impact of greed-driven fossils in government?
This is an excellent forum for me to make the following request.
"Seeking investors for the syndication of
a Blind, three legged, 40 year old Race Horse for a "good prospect" for next years Triple Crown series. After we win those, we will go on to dominate the world of Horse Racing for an unlimited number of years."
The above proposed advertisement could not be considered ridiculous when compared and printed with the above story's premise in News Outlets all over the country; and then the world.......in fact Fox News and the others would be required to pay a hefty fee just for interviews with the "president of the syndication" listed above--------we will be taking applications for that position in future correspondence--stay tuned.
Wind turbines are not green. They slaughter many many thousands of birds. They have to come up with ways to prevent this form happening(at this point, wind proponents just dont care).
It is important to look at ways of making solar panels non destructive(it is less so than wind power).
But this is clearly just about stopping solar technology.
Why isnt the Land Management going after cattle ranchers? They are devastating wild areas and decimating wildlife to keep meat on the tables for idiot humans.
"we want to make sure we do it properly because the environmental impacts are potentially significant."
Yes, we could find out how to become less dependent on oil and that would have an adverse impact on the oil environment.
Yes, we should try to find bird friendly wind turbines.
Millions of birds are killed by plate glass windows and cats, also. Ban them.
Holy Ned! We are really on th other side of the looking glass..Alice..WAAAAAY down the rabbit hole..this is..really a masterpiece of synical lies..
Yeah..this one is..AMAZINGLY OBVIOUS..WOW!..the shere AUDACITY of their hypocrisy...WOW!
As you also see..thank gawd!..but I have to rant anyway..WHERE ARE THEY IN COAL COUNTRY...DUHHHH..
AND THE OFFSHORE DRILLING? WHICH IS..WHAT? GOING TO WAIT TWO YEARS? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAAA
This one is SUCH bullshit..I am bewildered by this openly blatant bullshit.I didn't think that could happen anymore..but this one is..beyond the pale..
Some good ol boy's are getting a LAUGH somewhere..this one amuses the HELL out of them..you better believe it..LORD the HYPOCRISY!
Looks like the UK is miles ahead of this oil poor country. The UK is planning to invest approximately $200bn in renewable energy over the next 12 years instead of invading and occupying other countries. What the hell is wrong with our government?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7474592.stm
Finally, the current US government is doing something that I heartily approve of, i.e. requiring an environmental assessment of the solar industry's affect on the land and imposing a temporary moritorium on further development while the data is being collected and studied. (could this set some sort of a precident that would be useful elsewhere?)
We all know that the powerful would never accept such limitations on their developmental projects and would find a way to get around such an environmental assessment applied to them, one way or another.
Suppose the solar industry were allowed to make use of some percentage of the average annual expansion of the Great American Desert. (Note that the dessert regions in the USA are expanding due to climate change and desertification.) I suspect that the solar industry could easily get by if they could get licenses to build on only a small fraction of the average annual expansion of the desert. So I am suggesting here a way around the limitations is for one of those democrats to sneak this compromise into some omnibus bill somewhere so that no senator need bother spending his time thinking about such details.
Ironic, isn't it to see the government protecting the one biome that is expanding due to climate change and the misuse of the land.
Sorry to say, but anyone who works for a regulatory agency knows that environmental and safety regulations often work at cross-purposes.
All federal and federally funded projects require a very stringent NEPA "finding of no significant impact". There is no prioritization in the regulations; and even if there were, CO2 is still, in the USA, not an EPA regulated pollutant at all. So, if the project endangers a rare insect, or plant, it WILL be delayed or stopped, no matter how beneficial it is to addressing AGW.
Other regulations have similar effects. Storm water management regulations makes any new, compact, walkable transit-oriented, low-car-use urban development very difficult or impossible. There is no room for the retention ponds or underground retention reservoirs the regulations require in such communities - even though, owing to their compactness, such communities contribute less storm water pollution to the river basin on average, even without retention ponds! The well-meaning writers of these regulations simply didn't think any new RE development would NOT be car-oriented with sprawl and big parking lots.
Similar auto safety and NOx emission regulations also prevent the selling of cars in the US with the sort of fuel economy that is common in Europe.
Now the government is "concerned" about environmental impact? Yet Bush/McCain are proposing re-opening off-shore drilling for oil? Not to mention drilling in ANWR. What about this does not jibe? I think the last thing the petroleum industry wants is a premature (ie: before they extract the last drop of oil, and before they figure out how to corner the alternative energy market) development and implementation of alternative energy solutions. This new found caution should be looked at with a very jaundiced eye.
The solar power developers should play the game fair, silly as it is. One exemption, and who knows, people could build dams that block pacific salmon from spawning and almost wipe out the species, or blow tops off mountains in W Va and destroy the water quality. Oh, that's right, they already do that.
BTW there is no reason for big oil or king coal or anyone to stonewall solar. Peak oil is here, baby, and probably even most of the cheap to mine coal is now CO2. American oil reserves are drops in a bucket with a good size hole in the bottom.
Better to put the generation where the load is - on your home. Germany manages very well by letting people sell their excess to the grid at a premium price.
Hahaha. What a joke. Like we are supposed to believe that the government gives a shit about the environment? Riiiight.
BLM is run by industry, and has been for a very long time. That's how Peabody coal was able to get the "rights" to steal coal from Black Mesa, Arizona. Funny how they never do an EIS on coal. I was reading on coal this morning, and came across this little gem:
"Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:
U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons
Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):
Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 2,039,709 tons "
From http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html.
Of course, this site is arguing that we are throwing away recoverable fissionable material by burning coal, but to suggest that the government cares one iota about the environment is just so laughable that they should be ridiculed until the end of time, or until the entire planet is desertified, whichever comes first. (obviously the latter)
There is no doubt that "renewable energy" will never ever happen and the culprits are not solely the "greedy old companies." It is becoming abundantly clear to me that every form of "renewable" or "non-carbon" can be shot down for some environmental reason. I cite Pogo: "We have met the enemy. It is us." Yes, all of us who blindly oppose solar power, windmills, nuclear, coal, you name it without presenting a rational alternative other than back to horse-and-buggy with cities stinking of horse manure. Keep bickering folks. I am soon 81 and am unlikely to suffer from your myopia because I will be cremated when your shit hits the wind turbines.
In view of the past actions of this administration and their energy partners, it is apparent that they are using this tactic to delay development of renewable energy and energy independence.
Given thiir unprecenented practices of appointing unqualified people who suit their interests to such key positions this should be no suprise.
When I first looked at that picture above, I thought, yes, it could have an environmental impact - a positive one.
It seems to me that the shade provided by the solar panels could help prevent some of the water loss by evaporation and maybe, just maybe, reverse desertification after a while.
I agree with the need to do EIS, but it is criminal that the Govt. waited 30 years to do so. There will be an EI associated with such projects, but hopefully, the positive may offset the negative as Doll above points out.
A Solomanian approach would be to proceed with construction and learn as we do so, accepting that some environments will be damaged. In 5 years time, we will be experienced and still 5 years ahead of any gains from new drilling.
www.waterpoweredcar.com
I think this article and the BLM spokes poorly use the word "environment" in lieu of the more precise, "ecosystem". Of course a transition to solar could mitigate the impacts of oil use (unless we're just increasing overall energy supply in a way that doesn't decrease demand, ie hybrid car results). But increasing a cleaner energy source doesn't mean that there won't be impacts ecosystems.
Solar has a huge ecological footprint. We're talking about solar "farms" or "plants". Places where the entire character of the land may be modified to produce more energy. Just because it's solar, doesn't mean there are no impacts. Ever seen a dam or a wind farm? When you're talking about covering thousands, perhaps millions of acres of fragile desert ecosystems, there are bound to be negative impacts on the land.
The BLM has to account for any threatened or endangered species within it's land. It's a very tough call, but one that must be place specific. We can't just sweep over the impacts of solar because we perceive some overall gain. There will be lawsuits on behalf of species and landscapes.
It's sad that these studies haven't already been completed, but I'm not sorry that they're required.
In the meantime, let's stick solar on our buildings, where we need the energy anyway.
This using of legal mechanisms to block the solar projects serves them right--all of those progressives who have used the same kind of maneuvers to try and save some of Mother Earth for (what now looks like survival of) future generations.
Those Republican denyers of all things scientific--unless it's got a buck in it--must be really proud of themselves. This will truly be something they can brag to their grandchildren about--if we are all lucky.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Bush is pushing past environmental concerns when it is for oil, coal and gas.
Nah...this couldn't just be spite? Turning the environmentalist's tool against them, as if it was some game.
Spite
We could put a windmill next to every oil derrick. I'm sure people would think the view improved. Could we do even a little to help save ourselves Mr. Bush?
The way to test is to implement in a small way. Then evaluate, modify and expand. Otherwise it is just obstruction and stalling.
Having seen the salt flats and arid, desolate areas of the west, I find it hard to imagine that the negative impact on the local ecosystem is likely to outweigh the positive benefit of solar energy for the region.
RE: USAn: CO2 is still, in the USA, not an EPA regulated pollutant at all.
Yes, you are correct. It is still not a pollutant because the White House refused to open the email from EPA making it one--and, after that, even the EPA political appointee resigned.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/washington/25epa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Impeachment is way to good for this crowd. I think ------- would be more appropriate, if you get my drift.
Would you expect any better from a man who gratuitously inconveniences 40,000 citizens from a friendly country?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/24/britishairwaysbusiness.baa
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
The ONLY way the eco- fanatics are finally going to be happy is if EVERYONE on earth is given a 20 oz glass of "Jim Jones cool aid". Drink up and there will be NO MORE pollution or environmental damage to the earth ever again. Everything man does pollutes or causes some kind of environmental damage to the earth, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING --- DOWN with mankind!!!!
"Big Coal is firing back at James Hansen, NASA's top climate expert, who on Monday told a House committee on energy and climate that he thought top executives of coal and oil companies should be tried for "crimes against humanity and nature."
What would Hansen think appropriate punishment for his boss--quite possibly that there would be no punishment severe enough for a man who has so seriously harmed so many living and not yet born individuals. The Ultimate Sanction would surely be appropriate!
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/big-coal-fires-back-over-james-hansens-criminal-complaint/
nuclear breeder reactors are the only solution to this crisis. solar and the like are in the end simply distractions for the gullible.
Hello kloro (June 28th, 2008 7:42 pm)
Where do you live? We would need a back yard to put one in.
wolf123:"The ONLY way the eco- fanatics are finally going to be happy is if EVERYONE on earth is given a 20 oz glass of "Jim Jones cool aid". Drink up and there will be NO MORE pollution or environmental damage to the earth ever again. Everything man does pollutes or causes some kind of environmental damage to the earth, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING — DOWN with mankind!!!!"
Wolf123, I don't know your posts (and God knows I hope no one knows all of mine) but I just could not let the above go by. Let me try and parse the above: "we eco fanatics are only going to be happy when every one is dead."
Because we think we should act on the scientific conclusion of high probability of a much less healthy Earth unless we radically cut down on the burning of fossil fuels, that makes us "fanatics" who want everyone to die.
Does that really follow? If you think the science is wrong, why not just say that as opposed to impugning the character of those of us who are choosing to place our bets on the work of the scientific establishment--seeing that as the most sensible thing to do.
As for "Everything man does pollutes or causes some kind of environmental damage to the earth, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING — DOWN with mankind!!!!"
Just about every thing man does has consequences, and this was no big deal until there got to be billions of us and almost a billion of that number Hummerized and McMansioned. The results are a dismantling of the Biosphere--30% reduction of wildlife populations in 30 years--a collapsing cryosphere that humans definitely depend on, and so forth; literally a destroying of the resource base we depend on (the renewable analogue to the disappearing of easy and cheap oil).
So it is really not about man being bad or down with mankind but rather that we must now behave differently so that people who come after us will inhabit a planet that will offer them the opportunities it has offered us rather than bequeath to them an Earth Island that resembles nothing so much as Easter Island--fairly green but will not support much of anything.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Now here this! Build all those solar farms on top of those destroyed mountains in West Virginia. Give the sweetheart contract to Halliburton. No competitive bidding. "Hey, you! In the back. Siddown and shaddup!" Hire Blackwater for security. Big oil will be safe and happy until the sun explodes.
"Just about every thing man does has consequences, and this was no big deal until there got to be billions of us..."
See just what I said, Do you know an easy way to mix up enough "Jim Jones cool aid" for a a few billion people?
Your only other option is massive birth control projects, 1 child per family every other generation, stop all these doctors and scientists from finding cures for diseases, if you get something that could kill you then just die. One other thing we need a WW3 (I think the Iranians will soon help us on that) and make sure we kill 3 to 4 times the number that were killed in WW2 and population problem solved, pollution problem solved, global warming solved (If the Iranians and jews toss a few nuclear bombs at one another) it's a nuclear winter for a few years.
This story is a red herring meant to distract you from the fact that solar energy will never meet more than a fraction of the present and coming energy demand.
Solar is good. Yes. No argument.
But it has defined limits as to where, when, and what quality of sunlight will generate what amount of power. The materials used to make the solar panels are toxic, petroleum dependent, and break down over time (20+ years) necessitating their eventual replacement.
Then you have to take into consideration what would happen if every household and building in just the US alone were to have solar panels installed. The cost of selenium, a rare earth used in the production of solar panels would shoot up, increasing the end unit cost, as well as depleting the world supply of selenium. The petroleum based plastics used to case the solar panels is about to become a difficult commodity due to impending oil shortages and depletion. Then you have to have the current inverters and batteries to store the electricity. And wiring. And, and, and...it's a vicious cycle that only spirals deeper.
Solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, H2 systems, biofuels, and all the other 'alternative' energy systems can't meet even a tenth of the present energy requirements that hydrocarbons meet already.
In short, this is a wounded horse, limping out of the gate, and the rider just decided to turn back.
Over 500 million acres of land, 25% of the US land area excluding Alaska, is currently utilized to supply meat to the US population. 350 million in pasture/range, the rest in feed crops. On much of the range land, the grazing cattle seem to have modest impact relative to the intensively farmed cropland, but the mostly arid range land harbors delicate ecosystems and if you're interested in the natural world you will likely conclude that the liabilities of cattle grazing outweigh the benefits. So when we discuss solar power plant land usage, we cannot leave meat production out of the discussion. And yet the mainstream media does just that.
The SEGS solar thermal plants in the Mojave desert have a total area of 1951 acres and supply 232,000 houses with power so at a density of 4 houses per acre, the ratio of solar power plant area to suburban residential area is 0.33 or 3.3%. Surely we can find 3.3% of the developed area itself for solar electric power. Ehh? Will the looneys in Washington get with the program? Absolutely not. Sensible policy in the public interest is not the name of their game. It's an extremely poor choice to rely on them.
"a large number of international, large-scale players move their operations and headquarters to the US"
To hell with the "large-scale players". Let them all go bankrupt. We're building energy systems at the local scale, keeping the political and economic power local, ehh? Capitalism is generally hitting the skids anyway.
This is just plain wrong and insane on so many levels. Solar is not a silver bullet but it is great in appropriate areas but not if its centralized. Decentralized by community or individual rooftops is the way to use it. "Study the environmental impact"? What about studying the environmental impact of fast tracking nuclear plants and their associated waste disposal? Or obliterating entire mountain tops for coal and dumping the debris into canyons and streams? Lets fast track the study of conservation i.e. using less energy. Or maybe a Congressional investigation into the long history of energy technology suppression and the many inventors who have been bought out, threatened or killed?
Galen, I think your assumptions are based on a lot of old technology. New materials for PV panels are in the works and many solar homes in many parts of the country are completely self sufficient. Individuals are even running their electric cars off energy derived from home systems. Many companies are ramping up mining and fabrication facilities for solar panels right now. I suggest going through back issues of Home Power Magazine. Any energy infrastructure has its related hardware. You can't burn oil and gas without all those combustion engines and the refining, piping and shipping networks to get it there. "Wounded horse" my ass. Its a yearling who needs the proper nourishment and training to become a thoroughbred. And it could easily happen if the Feds gave it and other technologies as much coddling and subsidizing as they do the oil, coal and nuclear industries.
Dear Future Archaeologist (who finds this note buried under the remains of our former industrialized city),
We're sorry. We fucked up. Industrialization was so much fun, at least in the short run. We fast laned, fast fooded, bargain shopped, and fastly got deluded. Sorry we left the place worse off then we found it, we just didn't have time to remedy the polluted. We got scared and built ICBM's. Watch where you step, it's still radioactive for the next 400 millennium.
Yours truly,
The Brainwashed Generation
PS. Please print and redistribute at your local decimation.
As _ C A C T U S P I E _
so well counters, that energized YEARLING is now making roof tiles that easily get nailed down, connected, and switched on --
that would make even Santa Claus go Ho Ho Ho as he sledded across that roof top !
.
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
Solar power isn't only solar panels. Parabolic mirrors can heat water to turn steam driven turbines to produce electricity. Plus there is the possibility of finding many other ways to use solar energy. The problem is that there isn't much interest on the part of the country's owners.
The country has always belonged to the landowners. At inception, the biggest landowner was George Washington. Get the picture? The constitution was written by the owners to protect their interests. Things haven't changed since then.
How are they going to drill for oil through the solar panels?
L I Z A R D,
Perhaps the "ancient" mental concepts of property, are only mere abstract mental patterns, with no real association with the firmament, that we contend that we "own".
Even with the "force" of law behind, or up their a$$e$, why would we as sovereign souls provided with inalienable rights to pursue our joyful existence -- really care ?
Perhaps, the picture you mentioned, lasts almost as long as the thoughts that created last, and after that -- new creative thinking w/o boundaries of hierarchy can abundantly provide for ALL ?
Good and evil exist, as ( long as your ) thinking makes it so { phrasing upon the bard }
Namaste « Presence »
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world » — Gandhi
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed » — Gandhi
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — ML King
How about a two year moritorium on the border wall? That would give us time to do an EIS and to insure that Cherkof can't bully his way into ignoring it.
All energy on earth originates from the sun. Everything. Even oil was made by decomposing vegetation which originally grew from the sun. Harnessing our energy directly from the sun is the only truely 'clean' energy transfer method (wind is too, but it is also made by the sun). Solar power connects us directly to the source. It's time to cut out the middle men.