Comments on: Bush BLM: We don’t need no stinkin’ solar on federal lands

By: Donna Cathcart

Donna Cathcart — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 04:58:29 +0000

Get private cattle off of public land! Let the buffalo, wolves, foxes , panthers and prairie dogs live wild. And let the public enjoy their own land, not just a few crouded parks.

By: Tom Schaffter

Tom Schaffter — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:39:08 +0000

The continuation of application processing is important, but I think the bottom line has been totally missed — the *completion* of processing, the *approval* of applications, the *actual leasing* of land:

“Since 2005, the bureau has received more than 130 applications from private companies to build plants in those states. . . . Mr. Resch said the decision [to lift the moratorium] 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.””
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 07/ 03/ us/ 03solar.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin

Three years of application processing and not a single lease granted. And I’ll bet this doesn’t change while Bush is in office. His administration has delayed every significant challenge to the fossil fuel industries, to the probable catastrophic detriment of our children and grand children — more war over oil, peak oil, global warming. They will never forgive us!

By: Earl Killian

Earl Killian — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 03:19:19 +0000

Ents of Fangorn, the reason why investors are clamoring to situate CSP in the desert southwest is cost effectiveness. Rooftops typically don’t have the same high insolation that the Mojave and Sonoran deserts have. High insolation lowers the cents per kWh, which makes the investors more profit. Fortunately, it takes a tiny fraction of the desert southwest to power the U.S.

By: Ents of Fangorn

Ents of Fangorn — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 19:02:18 +0000

Moot point, I understand that BLM backtracked and lifted the moratorium a few days ago, so the high profits free-for-all is on once again. Why destroy our last vast wildlands, the last remaining biologically diverse in tact ecological systems of the US, when rooftops and thousands of acres of vacant, over-abused sterile ex-ag lands exist and can achieve the same goals? One word: FREE. Rooftops are free also, but corporate greed would not be able to control all the profits. The public lands, the last of earth’s wild heritage, are being offered free to corporations, to be bulldozed and obliterated forever destroyed. I read the posts in here that are outraged, because of a moratorium that only “suggests” environmental review when and EIS/review process is mandated by law. We need sensible alternative renewable energy development, not ecological devastation on a scale never seen before. It’s not green if it’s greed. It’s not green if it’s gone.

By: Doug Sharrott

Doug Sharrott — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:35:23 +0000

http://video.google.com/ videosearch?q=+the+energy+non+crisis+Lindsay+Williams&hl=en&sitesearch=#

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:32:50 +0000

The Wall Street Journal today has a whole section R on energy, including a page called “Cries in the dark”, profiling:
Roscoe Bartlett, Alexander Karsner (who I mentioned earlier), James Woolsey, and Robert Hirsch.

Also:
nuclear power, pro & con.
Smart electric meters.
Solar costs and trends
the transmission issue.
Algae
Natural gas drilling
Hawaii experiments
Midland Texas
Biobutanol

All in all, I thought it was a pretty good section. The WSJ often has fine reporting, even though OpEd lives in a different universe.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:01:12 +0000

Environmental Impact Statements are required by law.

The moratorium is on new applications. From the article: “moratorium on new applications was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts. In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29″. The current application process is slow. Even John Mashey concedes the executive order is an attempt to expedite the process.

Let’s remember the applicants, however desirable, are corporate interests looking to make a profit on government land. Nothing but their desire to make more money prevents them from putting their projects on privately owned land.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:36:06 +0000

Paul — Uhh, what are you talking about?

The Bush BLM “has placed a moratorium on new solar projects on public land” for two years.

You are really starting to worry me.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:54:10 +0000

“blocking all new solar projects on federal lands is … well,”
Joe, you continue to spread disinformation. No one is blocking solar projects on Federal lands.

By: Michael Hoexter

Michael Hoexter — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:15:54 +0000

Joe,
I think self-destructive is the perfect word…

The sudden caring about the environmental impacts of solar development in the desert is suspect, though of course a consistent and valid environmental impact study methodology is important. Mandating dry cooling AND paying developers for the additional expense, for instance, are two common sense rules that need to be put into place in tandem.

The fairly consistent and strong primary energy of the desert sun and the capacity to use thermal storage through CSP make it the highest quality renewable energy resource we have for the next few decades. We would be committing “climaticide” not to use it. I’ve put up this site to explain the value of CSP with storage (www.solarsouthwest.org)

John Mashey,
You should think about publishing on your typology…it’s very helpful!