How many times have I and others written about the enviroweenie/climate astrologer groups saying they believe in “green” energy but then protest and sue to stop actual construction? Here’s another (via A View From The Beach)
(Power Mag) A legal battle is brewing between the Department of the Interior (DOI) and three public-interest environmental groups that claim the government failed to consider degraded lands for the siting of “destructive” utility-scale solar plants, and that it focused instead on millions of acres of public land when it established solar energy zones in six southwestern states.
A complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on Tuesday by the Western Lands Project, Desert Protective Council, and Western Watersheds Project says the government’s analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “ignored alternative approaches that would be less damaging to the environment, more efficient, and less costly to taxpayers and ratepayers.”
Wait, I thought solar farms would be super mega awesome for the environment? Are these groups saying that they are actually bad for the environment?
“Massive solar power plants will have irreversible, essentially permanent, impacts. The [Bureau of Land Management (BLM)] admits that ecological recovery after solar plants are decommissioned, if even possible, could take 3,000 years,” the groups said.
“The Administration is opting to needlessly turn multiple-use public lands into permanent industrial zones.†said Janine Blaeloch of the Seattle-based Western Lands Project. “Solar development belongs on rooftops, parking lots, already-developed areas, and on degraded sites, not our public lands.”
Why, yes, yes they are saying that solar farms are bad for the environment. Hmph.
Of course, if they were built in those “other zones” the same groups, or some other enviroweenie group, would complain and sue.
3,000 years recovery?
BWWAHAHAHAA
I think our entire gov’t is infested with insanity.
These should not be built on public multi-use lands. Tax dollars should not be given to private companies to build on public lands for the benefit of a few.
The Feds should not be involved at all.
I suggest we build solar and wind farms in the heart of liberal cities, see how much they like it.
I seem to remember some liberal bastion doing just that. They put solar panels on telephone poles to add to the grid.
The residents hated them and started to steal and destroy them. There was also the issue that it was costing 5 or 6 times more than if a private contractor was doing in.
There was a lawsuit to stop the program, but I never saw the outcome.
In essence, it was a huge case if “NIMC” (not in my city.)
I know from reading the news at NJ.com that people in NJ, Pa and NY have had conniption fits over those solar panels, which is stupid since they really do pay for themselves, and considering so much of their electric infrastructure is above ground it is subject to outages.
I’d love them here in Raleigh for those occasions where the lights do go out.
Eh?
You’d like solar panels on city telephone poles to do… what? … when the electricity goes out in your city?
That can happen Gumball, but the more practical use is to add the electricity to the grid which means less strain on other generating facilities such as coal, oil, etc. Think about it this way…. on a hot summer day, most utilities have difficulty keeping up with demand from increased electricity demand because of air conditioning, pumps, etc. Hot, sunny, summer days in when solar panels can do their best work.
As I remember, the panels installed in certain towns were rather big – something like 2′ by 4′ and not the little solar power panels that keep a battery charged for a sign or call box. I forget the actual numbers, but by mounting the panels on poles, the city was going to get total a solar array of about 1 mile square, which is pretty hefty.
I wish we had them here as well. The only problem for me is that with hurricanes and all that, the panels would become frisbees in a storm.
But as Teach and I both noted, the liberal cities in which they were installed hated them. It was another case of “we aren’t going to do what we demand others do.”
I understand the point and purpose of a solar panel Gitarcarver. What I didn’t understand was the point of them during a power outage.
And yes, placing solar panels on public areas is a good means to help produce energy for the citizens. However, as you say, it is expensive and dangerous for those areas prone to strong winds and hail.
Solar panels on poles are momentary and spare seasonal adjustments to total energy output without a large battery. Yet, both panel and battery are very expensive compared to traditional energy output.
Recall, despite having solar panel produced energy, traditional power sources must continue to be powered up and ready to go – burning energy all the time.
The cost of solar is now down to less tahn 2 dolars a watt. It will soon go under 1 dollar. Fossil fuel costs will continue to go up. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/solar-wind/4306443
The cost of solar is dropping like that of computers. Under the most favorable (sunny) locations it can be as little as 4 years. With a longevity of at least 26 years.
Major utiliites are willing to help with the cost, they know it is cheaper than trying to build new plants, and who wants a coal fired plant in their backyard?http://www.solarbuzz.com/going-solar/using/economic-payback
And no one is willing to issue insurance now on a nuke plant, and without insurance you can not get financing.
Face up to it solar is the future, the hippies were right
But not burning as much energy. That’s the point.
True. But, despite what the greenies think, it can’t replace the construction of power plants. They still need to be built and powered up, staffed, and fueled, and sending out power to help stabilize the flow of energy from the “unstable” solar power.
I have no problem with them either. It just has to be up to the citizens of the city if they want to pay the extra expense of the panels, on top of what they are paying for the construction of the traditional power generation units.
I only see them as a stop-gap measure between the time when the city outgrows its current traditional generation capacity and must build another. It allows them to delay that timeframe. But, soon, that additional power plant must be built.