Solar Energy Comments due April 18, 2024

[SAJ-99]

Cost effective is feasibility and thats always subject - but the regulatory logistics involved make this argument incoherent in a practical sense.

Regulations are self-imposed constraints. It's not like it's "impossible" because of gravity. The film Oppenheimer reminded me that we can do a lot of things when we are pressed to. Right now everyone is still trying to stake a position to get the benefit but not sacrifice anything. If it takes financial incentives then so be it. There should be panels on every public building and every mall and we should start construction on new modular nuclear plants. We either are going to complain about the problem or find solutions. My concern on large-scale projects on BLM is the same as everyone else. Once that ope space is gone, the damage may be permanent.

 

[CraneMan]

That is true - but remember the sun doesnt shine all the time and the wind doesnt blow all of the time either.

I never proposed them being off grid. Net metering is what I was thinking and you are at the delivery point then. If all new construction was engineered and required to be capable of producing and accounting for some percentage of its demand, that frees up those Kwhs to be used elsewhere. But we digress...... Absolutely, keep that shit off my critical or sensitive habitats!!

 

[Forkyfinder]

Regulations are self-imposed constraints. It's not like it's "impossible" because of gravity. The film Oppenheimer reminded me that we can do a lot of things when we are pressed to. Right now everyone is still trying to stake a position to get the benefit but not sacrifice anything. If it takes financial incentives then so be it. There should be panels on every public building and every mall and we should start construction on new modular nuclear plants. We either are going to complain about the problem or find solutions. My concern on large-scale projects on BLM is the same as everyone else. Once that ope space is gone, the damage may be permanent.

Self imposed by PUCs, laws, and seperate owners to avoid monopolistic business practice. Thats the everest of hills to climb in terms of change.

Theres certainly benefit and less draw on the grid by folks producing their own power. In other words - panels on the businesses/homes would slightly reduce need for more power. Thats about the best it can do in present state.

I never proposed them being off grid. Net metering is what I was thinking and you are at the delivery point then. If all new construction was engineered and required to be capable of producing and accounting for some percentage of its demand, that frees up those Kwhs to be used elsewhere. But we digress...... Absolutely, keep that shit off my critical or sensitive habitats!!

Thatd be too sweeping (new work being capable of what you suggest) - im afraid. Folks really wouldnt like their power bill or new construction costs. Good to always advocate for the right places, approaches, and considerations associated with it though!

 

[WBT]

Thanks for sharing this. I just submitted some comments.

 

[huskyhunter]

I wish we would pull our heads out of our a** and put our time, effort and money into nuclear instead of solar and wind. People hear nuclear and think its horrible, but they don't realize it's the cleanest form of energy there is.

 

[nrpate05]

My underlying fear is that we are chasing a goal (substantially mitigating climate change) that we ultimately aren't going to reach. It is a global issue and 11 states in the American West can't fix it. Sure, we can mitigate our emissions at home, but ff China, India and other developing nations are going to continue increasing burning of fossil fuels and global temperatures are going to continue to increase, why burn up public land - a finite resource?

 

[Forkyfinder]

My underlying fear is that we are chasing a goal (substantially mitigating climate change) that we ultimately aren't going to reach. It is a global issue and 11 states in the American West can't fix it. Sure, we can mitigate our emissions at home, but ff China, India and other developing nations are going to continue increasing burning of fossil fuels and global temperatures are going to continue to increase, why burn up public land - a finite resource?

China and has built and is building more solar/wind than the USA. India is picking up steam. Many other countries (by percentage) are on higher percentage renewable than america.

Not saying you arent right (its all fruitless without everyone reducing emissions) - just that china doesnt expressly use coal only and abandon solar/wind generation. It just seems like a common political talking point.

 

[Rack Daniels]

#Learning

 

[longbow51]

Anyone know the results of the soil testing after the hailstorm on the solar field in Texas?

 

[3855WIN]

A renewable energy boom risks damaging some of America's richest soils in key farming states like Indiana, according to a Reuters analysis of federal, state and local data; hundreds of pages of court records; and interviews with more than 100 energy and soil scientists, agricultural economists, farmers and farmland owners, and local, state and federal lawmakers.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/solar-capacity-grows-some-americas-most-productive-farmland-is-risk-2024-04-27/

 

[RoughCountry]

Voting in liberal democrats has consequences!

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Voting in liberal democrats has consequences!

Same can always be said the other direction as well.

 

[Slam]

This whole discussion is founded on the politics of Green Energy (a fallacious argument). If the government proposes to site solar farms on public acreage we as citizens need to demand a proper feasibility/accounting/environmental study showing the advantages for KW production per a given footprint (acreage) and an environmental impact study for say 40 years down the road. Government subsidies included in the financial model. Furthermore, there needs to be discussions on what becomes of thousands of solar panels after their 25-30 yr life expectancy.

 

[Sytes]

April 18th is long gone... Hope the support and opposition put your keyboard chest thumping strokes to commenting, unless this is another popcorn-fest thread...

 

[SAJ-99]

April 18th is long gone... Hope the support and opposition put your keyboard chest thumping strokes to commenting, unless this is another popcorn-fest thread...

Hope there is the same keyboard chest thumping on the cleanup of coal ash ponds.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Voting in liberal democrats has consequences!

Irony - RE was booming under the last admin too.

 

[Sytes]

...support and opposition...

Hope there is the same keyboard chest thumping on the cleanup of coal ash ponds.

?
Nevermind.

 

[nrpate05]

Voting in liberal democrats has consequences!

We're also producing more oil than we ever have. Maybe the liberal democrats are the real pro energy independence folks...

 

[whatnot]

We, as hunters, always start from a position of weakness.

"We all need energy......." So we start with surrender, and work backwards from there.

Whether it's wolves/bears, or oil rigs, tge other side starts from "HELL NO!!"

"WE", actually don't have to be agreeable.

The answer today, is the same answer that should of been when the developing public for "renewables" bill popped years back.

Instead, we drank an IPA and diluted ourselves after decades and decades of evidence to tge contrary, that if we play nice, our "seat at the table" was important.


Pretending a solar farm isn't about the most destructive use of public ground imaginable is so asinine its hard to fathom.


Yet, here we are, debating at the margins

 

[Forkyfinder]

We, as hunters, always start from a position of weakness.

"We all need energy......." So we start with surrender, and work backwards from there.

Whether it's wolves/bears, or oil rigs, tge other side starts from "HELL NO!!"

"WE", actually don't have to be agreeable.

The answer today, is the same answer that should of been when the developing public for "renewables" bill popped years back.

Instead, we drank an IPA and diluted ourselves after decades and decades of evidence to tge contrary, that if we play nice, our "seat at the table" was important.


Pretending a solar farm isn't about the most destructive use of public ground imaginable is so asinine its hard to fathom.


Yet, here we are, debating at the margins

It really is incalculable to understand what the true long term costs of something are, or there enviromtental impacts. Its mostly a "political football" as @Big Fin would say. A great case in point is texas - known well as a deeply red state - it has the highest renewable output in the country.

The ecological impact/damage from a solar farm comes primarily from mining. The precious metals mined are mined with ugly practice and terrible for the enviroment, no doubt. Recycling them well is also not practiced, at the moment. Which represents its own set of issues and complications, obviously.

However, the area the panels are on is static - with a typical design life of 30-40 years. In that time frame - to generate the same electricity - the area disturbed to mine that much coal or extract that much gas would be much larger. The mine uses fuel, equipment, and all sorts of other things that ultimately came out of the dirt too.

It is exceedingly difficult (especially because info is typically politically charged to overstate one side of the facts) to weigh all options and understand the true impacts/costs/benefits of x vs y in energy development and conservation.

Our effort as hunters should be focused on defining critical areas and scientific justifications for them. If thats in as many as areas as possible - win. But going wholesale "No development" isnt going to be an argument that sells well enough to make a difference against public interest in goods/power/water and corporate interest in profit.