India Pushes, US Freezes Solar

Technocrat

India Pushes, US Freezes Solar

zogger

Mon Jun 30 17:35:00 -0700 2008

About+Technocrat.net.

manage

India, the government there, has announced a major push for solar power to help ease the energy situation and help improve the climate. In the US, new solar projects destined for public lands out west, where the government owns most of the land, have been put on a two year freeze for "environmental impact" studies.

"It doesn't make any sense," said Holly Gordon, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs for Ausra, a solar thermal energy company in Palo Alto, California "The Bureau of Land Management land has some of the best solar resources in the world. This could completely stunt the growth of the industry." ed.z.: and if you remember, they already put a hold on a lot of new big wind projects because it allegedly interferes with fatherland security radars. Of course the new mandate for the solar only affects public lands, but still, the mantra has been "we have millions of acres of hot sunshine out in the deserts just sitting there" for some years now..because we do, that's reality and they are spiffy places to do the large scale projects. So...sort of an oddball *coincidence* with the fast rising conventional fuel prices, isn't it?

India Pushes, US Freezes Solar

oGMo

Mon Jun 30 18:50:50 -0700 2008
manage

Yes, there are conspiracy theories, but there's also the very real impact that covering major areas of the desert in reflective solar converters has on the local climate.

It's similar to the whole biodiesel thing. Everyone wants a quick knee-jerk solution, some people want to get rich off their particular product. Then we realize "wait, this hurts things more!"

Why should we spend public money on something potentially harmful to public interests?

well that's perfectly disgusting

rubycodez

Mon Jun 30 19:00:07 -0700 2008
manage

environmental impact indeed, 1 milion out of 119 million acres of blazing hot useless federal desert affected, the squirrels and tortoises will move when the heavy construction equipment comes, trust me.

well that's perfectly disgusting

phred14

Tue Jul 01 06:05:35 -0700 2008
manage

They're thinking of the wildlife. Caribou can move much faster than squirrels and tortoises, obviously. Therefore there's much less environmental impact to drilling ANWR than there is to possibly considering maybe someday installing solar power in the desert.

well that's perfectly disgusting

rubycodez

Tue Jul 01 08:02:57 -0700 2008
manage

no, I don't believe all of a sudden after a few years they're suddenly concerned about the wildlife, what a load of rubbish.

Killing every bit of wildlife in that one million acres would make no difference to any species, there are plenty of even those "endangered" tortoises everywhere else in the southwest, they're even a popular pet and the many big zoos within a hundred miles of my Chicago suburb have them.

.

well that's perfectly disgusting

phred14

Tue Jul 01 09:39:56 -0700 2008
manage

Whoosh. I guess my sarcasm was missed. Sorry. Happens on Slashdot, too.

well that's perfectly disgusting

rubycodez

Tue Jul 01 09:44:55 -0700 2008
manage

oop, a few government and cartel friend "actions" in the past few days have left me cranky, wouldn't take it so personally except it's costing me money and my future

well that's perfectly disgusting

weston

Tue Jul 01 20:55:15 -0700 2008
manage

Killing every bit of wildlife in that one million acres would make no difference to any species

I'm assuming there's some hyperbole at work here, because a literal reading of that statement is rather unlikely, and shows a missing appreciation for complex systems the kind of competent tech pro I'd expect frequents this site.

The southwest isn't the woodlands of the east or the praries of the midwest, but desert doesn't necessarily mean wasteland, and I doubt the only concern here is tortoises.

This doesn't mean the BLM is doing or is going to do this right, but opposing an impact study on the principle that the southwest is wasteland isn't sound.

well that's perfectly disgusting

rubycodez

Wed Jul 02 09:15:35 -0700 2008
manage

bad news for you, some of the people who frequent technocrat have backgrounds in engineering including civil engineering. they therefore know when the magnitude of a land area is of no consequence to species which are spread over hundreds of times that land area.

Unfortutately, some readers also are of the "symbolism over substance" ilk

well that's perfectly disgusting

weston

Wed Jul 02 15:06:50 -0700 2008
manage

Following up non-sequiturs about tortoises by harping on species as the apparent limit of your environmental issues, isn't helping your case. And in addition to that, you're not discussing any specific knowledge, and on top of that, you're oozing far more contempt than information.

If you've got something -- say, information to pointing to a comprehensive explanation about what the environmental impact study would actually be studying, and why it's already unnecessary because conclusions can already be drawn from other similar studies -- feel free to share, but vague generalities about "symbolism over substance" ain't it, even if you feel like an engineering degree is a distinguishing accomplishment around these parts.

India Pushes, US Freezes Solar

Are You Kidding Me

Tue Jul 01 07:07:08 -0700 2008
manage

Are you "effing" kidding me? Are we completely stupid?

We need to change everyone in Washington and bring in people who have common sense. People can't afford to buy food, gas is through the roof, we are on the edge of a recession, people are losing their jobs and the Government wants to stop this. Why, to put more money into the BIG OIL pockets? What, should we let Exxon/Mobile and Texaco get into the solar energy business before it is open? This is completely moronic.

I enjoy the outdoors, was a boy scout, believe in conservation, always recycle, but can't believe the Gov't is looking to see what effect this might have on the environment where no one and almost nothing lives. People have to feed their families, heat their houses, and put gas in there cars. People have to live!!!

If this helps to reduce green house gases and it's for free. What is the problem? If it helps reduce my electric bill, if it helps reduce our need for carbon based fuel supplies, then what is the problem?

Have people completely gone crazy. Doesn't BIG OIL have enough money.

India Pushes, US Freezes Solar

phred14

Tue Jul 01 10:16:50 -0700 2008
manage

Not the original poster, but the answers are obvious.

Are you "effing" kidding me? Are we completely stupid?

No. Yes.

We need to change everyone in Washington and bring in people who have common sense. People can't afford to buy food, gas is through the roof, we are on the edge of a recession, people are losing their jobs and the Government wants to stop this. Why, to put more money into the BIG OIL pockets? What, should we let Exxon/Mobile and Texaco get into the solar energy business before it is open? This is completely moronic.

When you want to see why someone is acting they way they are, you have to understand the metrics by which they get evaluated and rewarded and punished. Then remember that for people in Washington DC, reward is getting to stay and punishment is going back home.

Then remember that the biggest factor in any election is getting enough money to run a campaign. The second biggest factor is avoiding scandal, and sometimes this one nudges into first place. (Sometimes the scandal is so bad even deep pockets won't fix it.) In third place you have to please the voters, but even this can be tweaked by proper use of media to spin your voting record, as well as painting your opponent as "more evil" than you. Even at that, voter desires are sufficiently diluted that very few votes will really anger a majority of people back in the district/state.

I enjoy the outdoors, was a boy scout, believe in conservation, always recycle, but can't believe the Gov't is looking to see what effect this might have on the environment where no one and almost nothing lives. People have to feed their families, heat their houses, and put gas in there cars. People have to live!!!

Don't forget that taking this action is "conservative." I've pondered the question of what it is that modern "conservatives" are conserving. It certainly isn't conservation of natural resources, as you say. It isn't conservative, as in what worked yesterday will work tomorrow, because the current administration has made tons of changes, practically all for the worse.

The only thing I can come up with that "conservatives" are conserving is...

Their wealth and power.

If this helps to reduce green house gases and it's for free. What is the problem? If it helps reduce my electric bill, if it helps reduce our need for carbon based fuel supplies, then what is the problem?

See above.

Have people completely gone crazy. Doesn't BIG OIL have enough money.

Yes. Never, the word is "more" with no terminating condition on the loop.

Finally...

Economic theory assumes a substrate of consumers, producers, exchange of information, goods, and capital to move all of that around. It's all really basic stuff, and generally a good set of assumptions. But IMHO it is possible abuse those underlying assumptions to the point where they break. I'd like to do some more reading on it, but I believe it happened in 1929, and may be happening again...