Interior secretary says land can generate 100,000 megawatts
Great. One more reason to lock up public land from the public.
There goes the viewshed. Out with the carbon in with the looking at acres and
acres of solar panels on these lands that the granola crowd holds so dear. Pick
areas under evaluation could generate nearly 100,000 megawatts of solar
electricity.Wow, now were talkin!(Kirk, did you read the
article? These lands will be opened up for commercial solar development.)
What good is solar power generation when half of a given 24 hour period it
produces no power? Are we going to become a 3rd World country where there is
mandatory or rolling blackouts at night because solar power only works in the
day time? Same thing with wind power. What happens when the wind doesn't blow
Covering these valleys with cadmium-laced PV cells can't be good for the
resident animals. It will be telling whether environmental impact statements
are done and whether environmentalists give these projects a free pass.At least oil and gas can be safely produced in a farm, orchard, vineyard, or
wildlife refuge as is has been done in California and the Gulf Coast for
decades. Try that with solar panels, or try windmills in a bird refuge!
Kirk - please get a clue. Every gigawatt we produce from our own land,
mobilizing the sunlight that falls there every day, is energy we don't have to
burn fossil fuels to produce. This is a fine reversal from one more
corrupt action, late in the game, by Team Bush: a 2008 move to lock up
virtually all the BLM lands and delay solar-energy development, by pretending
that long environmental reviews were needed. This, from the Administration
which had such a dismal record on the environment, just about the same
credibility as Iran has in running elections.Now, the solar energy
industry needs to get busy and build those plants.That's better for all of
us.Especially those who live in the Great Basin states.
This is a bit two-faced of our Interior Secratary. First he cancels the legal
bids of several tracts of land several miles away from any national park for oil
and gas exploration and production. Now he wants to lock up land to put solar
pannels which are equally damaging to the land not to mention the harmful
chemicals required to produce solar cells. Like a previous comment noted, "pick
Kevin-You need to let go of your obviously inbred hatred of all
things Bush and live in the here and now. The points concerning environmental
impact are valid and need to be discussed. The cost associated with the
manufacture, capture and delivery of large scale solar farms and their overall
impact on the environment needs to be compared to today's current methods for
oil and coal recovery and production. Want to be fair and honest? Look at the
whole picture and stop the bashing.
I'm for solar and wind, but the article is misleading. It only talks about
capacity, not actual production which is about 1/3 or less of capacity. Any companies that build solar also get at least 40% of the project paid
for by taxpayers in the form of direct subsidies and tax breaks. Probably will
get land lease discounts as well.
On the subject of living with oil wells.Ever been to that oil-slick of
beach at Corpus Christi? Would you like some Alaskan crab from the Valdez
spill? Yummy!You've never been to the Persian Gulf I'm sure. I have.
The water pollution from oil production is staggering. A sheen of oil covers
the surface of the water in every bay I saw. Truth is the biggest threat
to this country is the billions of $ flowing to Saudi Arabia to fund our oil
habit. Can't eliminate it. But this is a good start. Who are these people
getting all weepy over some scrub brush in Nevada? The best use for that desert
wasteland is solar farms. Bummed about losing your "view"? Jeez, we're talking
solar power here. Zero pollution while in operation. No toxic fumes, no
cancerous effects, doesn't even kill salmon! We must have power. If we lose a
bunch of useless desert, no worries. Oh, the plants do not work 24/7? Hey
chief, it's called scheduled maintenance, at nighttime! And the payback is, we
get the oil monkey off our backs!!
Kevin: The Cadmium/Tellurium issue is not an environmental impact if you recycle
the panels at the end of their useful life. The heavy meatl risk is in the
recycling, not in the use.Its is also an essential heavy metal in the PC you are
using right now.
Thinkin' Man: You nailed it. There is bound to be some wacko fringe
enviromental group, if not some of the more well-known domestic terrorist enviro
groups, that will find a way to stop these projects because they will adversely
impact some plant, bird or animal that no one has ever heard of.
We should all be for new sources of domestic energy!Now, if we can
just get these idiots to stop talking about taking away our current sources,
we'd be golden!
I think they are talking about ACTIVE SOLAR (mirrors heating water to drive
steam generators). And to those who think that solar energy is 12 hour a day
thing, think again... ever hear of energy storage? Pump water up the hill during
the day, and generate electricity at night by running it down hill through
Kevin,I think you were missing the point of other posters. Every time we
want to turn even a shovelfull of dirt and impact statement must be done.
Environmentalist always decry the development of our wilderness. This will be
developing our wilderness and it will be interesting to see if the Sierra Club
and other groups sue to stop this project the same way they would if this was an
oil or gas drill. I doubt they will since it is all political anyways and all
about the all mighty dollar.
All of these touchy-feely projects are show ponies and not practical. The
percentage of power generated per acre of land is a fraction of what we need.
It's outrageous that in the era of clean coal technology, the U.S. has enough
domestic low-sulphur, high-btu coal just locked away in Southern utah to fuel
most U.S. domestic power plants for 200 years. But enviro wackos have succeeded
in scaring everyone that coal is "dirty." Just on the Kaiparowitz alone, there
is a coal deposit that is 25 feet thick, 20 miles wide, and 40 miles long, of
high BTU, low-sulphur coal, and it could be mined with minimal impact to the
landscape -- visible only at the "portals."
We need clean energy, clean air, clean water, clean land and energy
independence. We also need to encourage energy efficiency and technologies such
as ground source heat pumps.We may not agree with each other re: CO2
cap/trade, taxes, or our effects on climate.We do need more
renewable energy. Coal is reportedly being removed fast enough in Utah that it
could last only 15 to 45 years for use in Utah at current rates.We
will need more electricity to offset a reduction in the use of foreign oil, and
we can't afford to just rely on coal.Do we have existing dams that
we could add hydro power to, without putting more land underwater, hurting our
rivers and/or wildlife?It has been pointed out that renewable energy
will help the state's economy in places that coal, or gas won't. Renewable
energy being added to the mix will increase the life of the Utah coal
economy.Having goals to rely on renewable energy and energy savings
to make up the increased demand on power is good.
Fantastic!Solar Power not Spent Rods GOOOOOBama!!!
Wake up America...GOOGLE.....Stirling Engine + SunPower!250,000Homes in
Southern Calif powerd 24hrs a day on the 40Acre Solar Grid in Death Valley Solar for AMERICAOil for War MungersFree solar for
Renewable energy is great, in theory.However, delivering it at
affordable (not competitive, just affordable) rates without massive government
subsidies and tax exemptions and the like is impossible.Maybe we
could buy wind/solar power from Utah Power at some price, perhaps even near what
traditional sources cost. And then pay an extra $5,000 a year so the government
can subsidize the renewables? Not a very good idea in my book.While
renewables do eliminate the wealth transfer to Saudis for oil, we will still
need many new power plants to have the capacity to deliver power at time when
wind/solar sources are unable to produce. The "storable" concept mentioned
above is just not close to being cost effective, although theoretically it can
provide some energy.If we really need power, just quit selling the
coal produced power from the Intermountain Power Plant in Delta to California.
They don't like nasty coal stuff anyway, so let them put windmills on their
hilltops and cover their mountains with solar panels.Every
enviornmentalist should be forced to use the renewable stuff and pay the actual
cost, since they like it so much.
It is good if Utah or any other place in the nation can significantly contribute
to energy via solar, wind or geothermal.I recently read of a company
in (Arizona or New Mexico) who is working on a solar project where mirrors are
focused on a tower, and it will provide 24 hour electricity, because it heats
salt to over 1000 degrees and this is enough stored heat to continue to turn
water into steam even during the night hours. The Air Force is hindering the
company though because they don't want this solar power plant so close to the
Air Base.Another thing we need to look at is reprocessing of nuclear
waste. The French do it and they have much less nuclear waste as a result.
Most of their electricity is nuclear and it works very well for them. This is
less expensive than wind and is very clean.We ought to consider the
possibility of making use of Yellow Stone. I read a study where this could
provide more than 60 billion watts of power, about30 nuclear power plants worth.
It could probably be done in a way that wasn't too visible.
I'm totally in favor of solar. In fact, our new home is totally solar off grid.
However, WE STILL NEED TO DRILL!!!!
"Energy storage" with solar means batteries. Batteries are made of toxic heavy
metals that must be mined. The batteries must be replaced every 3-4 years, and
if it's a big solar facility that's a massive number of batteries.Only one small start-up company in California recycles solar panels.The oil pollution examples cited above are all in foreign countries where
modern standards are not in place. America is better than that.The
facts indicate solar energy is too expensive, too inefficient, takes up too much
land, and is impractical in most of the US because of weather/sunlight
(including northern Utah). We have better alternatives, and the fact that we're
not pursuing nuclear energy and domestic oil & gas indicates we're ruled by
feelings over facts. That will be our downfall.
Concentrating Solar Power plants, which are producing power now in AZ and CA and
throughout Europe and other parts of the world don't use batteries and don't use
cadmium and other dangerous minerals. They also can store the heated liquid
that is produced for more than 24 hours and be generating electricity 24 hours a
day, in other words, when the sun isn't shining.You naysayers ought
to do your research and investigate the facts instead of just believing
something. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so.
Our home is totally off the grid with wind and solar power. When all the fossil
fuels run out, we will still have power. We don't use mirrors or water with our
solar production, but we have plenty of power - even through the night.It's time for a change.
I like the idea of using renuable energy, that will never run out and that the
United States doesn't have to import.However presently this energy
is more expensive than oil, coal and gas,Doesn't it make sense to
remove the barriers to nuclear power, as well as allow reprocesing of waste so
that the low cost of nuclear can be averaged in with the cost of renuables, so
the American consumer will not be hit with a big bill.When Obama was
running for office, he spoke out in favor of Nuclear energy, but now there is
Solar is a nice add on as it produces power during the peak usage time; the
middle of the day. Wind has a niche too. Bottom line is that our manufacturing
cost are high in this country, but uber cheap electricy can offset a large
portion of this. We need to build a LOT more nuclear power plants. Can someone
explain why we can't just dig a hole 5 miles deep in the desert, below any water
table, and encase the spent rods in concrete?
RE: DeeI've been active in energy research for 30 years, and that's
what my conclusions are based on. Anyone who researches energy without bias and
prejudice will place solar last on the list of practical, desirable, or
affordable energy sources on the large scale.
re: Why all the focus on solar? | 3:15 p.m.----------------- It's
not just one answer.Power is needed in peaks and valleys over the 24 hour
day.Peak times are mornings, through-out the day (business hours) and late
afternoon/early evenings.Most Powerplants run at a constant state.Hydro-electric dams open and close to regulate output. By agumenting
with a constant state system, power needs can be met without constantly
producing excessive and wasted energy. Since Solar plants produce
during the day-light hours, so they are considered an agumentation supply source
for the extra needs during the day.
To "Bill | 11:28 a.m." why waste the spent rods by sending them to the center of
the earth. If we do like much of Europe, and reprocess them, we have a nearly
limitless supply of fuel.
proposed neighborhood power generation to avoid the losses associated with power
transmission over miles...now even hundreds of miles.This might be
yet another piece to investigate for a very large and complex problem.
It costs billions to build just one nuclear power plant, and no one wants to
insure one.Add to that the costs of toxic waste storage, security,
decommissioning, etc., and there is no point in building any more nuclear
plants, especially since this type of fission energy will be replaced by nuclear
100,000 megawatts. Isn't that what it takes to energize Al Gores home for a
month? Scamers, Scamers all!
I cannot believe people are spewing bile about solar energy. No,
actually, never mind. I fully expect the maximum amount of bile to be spewed
from your disgraceful demographic, who have made a goal of abusing their
environment on grounds that it is conservative, and abusing the people around
them on the grounds that it is conservative, and destroying the environment for
future generations on the grounds that it is conservative. How can
these people who thirst for such evil live with themselves? I hope you stay in
Thomas Edison | 12:58 p.m proposed neighborhood power generation because he
advocated D.C. power rather than A.C. D.C. power can only be transmitted over
short distances, thus requiring multiple local generating facilities.
It's interesting how people (perhaps fossil fuel employees?)seem to have ignored
your post.I have also read of the new way to store solar energy
using molten salts. It's already being done in Spain and Russia. So why should
the U.S. lag behind? I'm glad Arizona is starting this new-to-us technique.New techniques are being invented at a rapid pace. We need to encourage
this, instead of be naysayers and only look at the old ways.
You are the kind of homeowner we need more of. Thank you for
getting your home off the grid with an exciting way to generate energy.
One would think with the egregious quality of the air in your area, you would
have long adopted cleaner energy source techniques. I have been to the Wasatch
Valley in January. I could barely breathe OR see. You all need all the help
you can get.
Anonymous | 1:14 p.m "who have made a goal of abusing their environment..., and
abusing the people around them ..., and destroying the environment for future
generations...."Amazing since each solar site will cover three
square miles, killing the whole ecosystem in those three square miles, solar
sites proposed will destroy the environments, be noxious visually, and destroy
the environment for future generations. Total proposed unopposed solar sites
75, currently totals 225 square miles. To maintain the sites will require
vehicles to drive throught the whole site so everything underneath will be
killed. Then you still need transmission lines. Thus the
environment is a poor qualifier for solar as opposed to clean coal, nuclear, or
natural gas.And I always thought the deseret was a fragile
Brandon | 1:38 p.m. Hey Brandon, nobody generates electricity in the Wasatch
Valley except for cogeneration plants and natural gasplants.
How about this for an arguement for going Nuclear instead of PV arrays.A 1000 MegaWatts nuclear facility can take up 75 acres of land. Not all of
that land is used for buildings, so there is still some room for green carbon
absorbing trees and such.SkyTran sells PV arrays that operate at 16
watts/sq ft. So, if we took 75 acres, and covered it entirely with PV arrays,
we could produce 52 MegaWatts. So, to produce the same amount of energy as a
nuclear power plant, we would need 62,500,000 sq ft or 1435 acres. So, which
power source do you think will have the greatest impact on the environment?Waste from nuclear plants can be buried inside of a deep hole, again
with minimal environmental impact.
does anyone know where i could look at the map outlining the potential solar
energy locations? the article says it was added to the Federal register, and I
can't find it anywhere. Help?
RE: SaltA solar plant using first oil and later molten salt was
built in 1981 in the Mojave Desert at Dagget, California. It was such a money
pit, it was closed down after a short, expensive run. It's now a telescope.The U.S. is ahead, not behind on this. Spain and others are now
learning the painful lesson that large-scale solar power generation is too
expensive and too inefficient.The "bile" of Anonymous 1:14 is
astounding! I thought such bias, prejudice, ignorance, and vitriol were rare in
Having spent my entire career in energy engineering and even grew up in the
petroleum business, I have three comments:1. Very little oil is used
to generate electricity - most is used in transportation, bringing the
groceries, etc. to the consumer.2. Solar electric generation is
still minuscule as compared to coal and a study is just that. We are years away
from a real impact on our energy consumption.3. I was Construction
Executive on the Solar One project at Daggett and, early on, calculated, based
on the operation and maintenance costs with a reasonable write-off on
investment, that the kwh cost would be nearly 50c. You can have it. By the way,
although I know the oil coagulated and became useless, I had not heard they had
tried salt and failed. Back to comment 2. It is an infant industry.
I think the southwest utah wilderness association (or whatever they call
themselves) have a real conundrum on their hands. do they ensure the
environmental impact statement is complete, or do they bow to BO and salaczar on
this one? land in CA has already been ruled off limits for a solar
farm because of some desert animal, will they protect "red state" land to the
same extent they protect "blue state" land? don't kid yourself, of course they
will not!how many of you in favor of this relegation of Utah to
third-class status in the BO misadministration are off the grid and/or paying
the extra $2 an hour that rocky mountain power charges for "green" power.
they've been offering it, if you're so sold on it, why aren't you using it?I thought Hawaii was sunnier more of the time than Utah, why not cover
their landscape with these panels? that's right, red-state blue-state BO