31 Comments Add your own

• 1. js  |  June 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am

  in 2 years, the plants would be practically ready to go online….

• 2. js  |  June 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am

  funny how they overlook the obvious things…men already have plenty of rooftops to use for solar panels…why do they need to destroy more land for this?

  our government officials are stupid….

• 3. hermie  |  June 27th, 2008 at 10:46 am

  Although solar technology is improving, it still isn’t going to power the typical suburban 3-bedroom home in the same amount as current power sources.

  But if you can’t be allowed to experiment on a significant scale, what is the use of trying to develop it in the US? You’ll see more jobs and more potential jobs going to countries which aren’t too anal about disturbing the long-tailed pygmy raccoon.

• 4. js  |  June 27th, 2008 at 10:47 am

  they should require every home to have at least 12 60W solar panels on its roof, capable of generating enough electricity to remove that home from the power grid…and…with the amount of money that they waste…they could actually finance this interest free for homeowners, who could continue to pay the average cost of a utility bill until the whole thing is paid off in full…efffectively leaving the taxpayer with pretty light footprint for the entire program and helping to get this nation into a better position to become free of our reliance on foreign energy….

• 5. David B. Schmidt  |  June 27th, 2008 at 10:57 am

  Too bad the technology isn’t there yet — getting closer but not quite there. I had solar for my water but it is still cheaper to purchase electricity (per KWH) today. Most states have an agreement that if you produce more than you use–the power companies are required to buy it from you.

  Kinda OT but not really–when I was stationed in Camp Pendleton & 29 stumps–we were stopped by enviros from cutting a fire break before seasons changed (Fire & Mud Slide) because of a kangaroo rat that wasn’t even native.

  Needless to say I didn’t mind not having to work and then the fire season came to CA. Cleared arce after acre (because of no fire breaks) which I helped fight and it is quite possible that all the little rats died in the fire. Now with no cover left~then came the rains and the mud slides.

  Seems to happen every year now that the government of CA is afraid of the enviros. Good job causing more destruction while not actually producing anything.

• 6. Danish Artist  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:08 am

  Have these environmentalists thought about the amount electricity it takes to make a solar panel. Melting and purifying raw silicon is an extensive process.

  Not only that to clean, purify and then apply the coating required involves highly corrosive and toxic chemicals.

  Hmmm, I wonder.

• 7. David B. Schmidt  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:14 am

  Now I see that they several environmental groups in California agreed to 22 new off-shore oil and natural gas wells. Wonder why? A different type of “green” — all you need to do is follow the money.

  Kind of like Obama and all of his beliefs–can be bought for the right price. I believe it was Amanda Carpenter that put it best for both of these folks (Obama & the Enviros) when she said about Obama “When faced with a tough decision between money and principle, Obama took the money.”

• 8. js  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:15 am

  1. its federal law that requires power companies to buy your excess electricity if you generate it…

  2. solar tech is advanced far enough that they could start taking home totally off the power grid…they sell packages for remote regions that fully power homes…

  3. most people can live fine with 12/60w solar panels on thier roof…and do without anything…including AC….dang…they have 120w panels that will give you 240v ac…wake up and stop pulling our legs…solar power IS there….

• 9. Aaron - Elephant Forum  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:20 am

  (the following is read in the voice of a used care salesman on tv.)

  Soooo the libbys don’t want you to build solar panels because you will disturb a fuzzy tailed rat? Environmental loons say, “hey, you can’t build there until we study the impact on the surrounding rocks!”.

  Well, have we got a deal for you. Yes this is CRAAAZY Eddie, here at Mud Huts ‘R’ Us!! We have the answer to all your environmentally sensitive needs. MUD HUTS!! That’s right folks, you heard me right…MUD HUTS. NO electricity needed, No running water needed, NO bills, NO frills…and best of all no insurance required. If it blows over well sell you another.

  Soooo come on down to Crazy Eddies Mud Hut warehouse where we are so crazy we are almost giving these things away. If you buy in next 24 hours we will throw in a perfectly good outhouse. So come on down, make a purchase and live guilt free.

  *This advertisement paid for by the environmental wacko fund*

• 10. bagni  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:28 am

  markmental
  last time the green goofballs checked
  the blm was a government agency?

  universally confused as usual?
  should govt even be in this business?
  this is one where free mkt should rule
  and the u.s. should become the leaders
  think of all the revenue…….
  but earthlings would have to give up a few things
  oh…that’s right…….
  cold dead hands on guns AND oil

• 11. Karl Engels  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:40 am

  The progressive tax system will finally come back into play under Obama. We will soak the rich and finally fulfill the fact that Democracy is the road to socialism. We will use their blood money to pay for national health care, to provide citizenship for 12,000,000 illegal’s, eliminate the use of fossil fuels, withdraw our U.S. military from nations so we can begin paying them reparations and then proceed to withdraw our evil bourgeois economic interests overseas.
  Peace, Bread And Land my brothers and sisters. Vote Obama! Vote for socialism.

• 12. William Teach  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am

  An interesting point about solar farms is the amount of land required. In order to provide all the power for San Diego, they need 5 square miles of clear cut land with solar receptor, which track the sun like a sunflower.

  While I am not against solar, that kind of plant is not viable for most of the country. I’m sorta with js, in that they should work on better solar panels for private homes and business. Though I am not for requiring it.

  However, and interesting counterpoint for the AGW disciples is what will this do to the climate? The solar cells will capture more sunlight, which will be trapped, rather then going up in to the atmosphere where some is reflected back due to greenhouse gasses, mostly water vapor. If it is trapped, could that lead to extreme man made cooling?

  What about the creatures that live in the areas? How will they be effected? Enviro’s freak out about drilling and pipelines in Alaska, but, the animals love it. More localized heat for food sources, such as grass.

  What about the loss of fauna in the areas that have solar farms? And disposal of solar panels is not exactly clean.

• 13. Retired Spook  |  June 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am

  bagni,

  You’re certainly free to give up anything that you believe is environmentally or socially irresponsible, including anything made from petroleum, but you toucha my guns, I breaka your hand. Capisce?

• 14. Mateo Giovanni  |  June 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 15. Retired Spook  |  June 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pm

  I’ve acknowledged, on a number of occasions that Solar seems to be the only alternative/renewable form of energy that Liberals actually support and don’t actively try to block. It appears that now even Solar is down the crapper. That leaves me wondering just exactly what form of energy is acceptable to the Left.

• 16. bitchslap  |  June 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

  Deleted - off topic.

• 17. bitchslap  |  June 27th, 2008 at 1:06 pm

  If it is off topic to comment on another post in the same exact thread, then one can only assume the original post was also off topic.

  I can understand that you do not agree with McCain’s decision to follow the money as Schmidt claims Obama does, but deleting this fact from your insignificant blog does not actually change the truth. You do realize that, right? You are not so delusional in your own grandeur that you believe deleting something from your blog actually makes it not real.

• 18. Ricorun  |  June 27th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  Spook, BLM is not a greenie organization.

  A comprehensive study of the situation is, as the article cited in the topic indicates, something that even solar proponents welcome — and a bit late in coming. But a moratorium? That seems to me to be a bit of an overreaction. It’s not like a solar plant (or any other kind of plant) would ever be approved without an environmental impact study anyway. That’s part of the process.

  I’m not sure what to make of this news. Considering the debate going on in congress and on the campaign trail about whether or not to lift the moratorium on oil drilling in various locations, it does seem a little suspiciously timed. Then again, it doesn’t appear to affect any of the existing 125 or so projects already in the pipeline. So maybe its effects won’t be that bad. I sure hope not. It would be an unmitigated disaster if this moratorium killed the industry just as it was about to get off the ground. It’s going to be interesting to see how the conversation goes in the coming days and weeks.

• 19. Retired Spook  |  June 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pm

  Spook, BLM is not a greenie organization.

  Yeah, Rico, my bad. I’m just losing my patience with energy evolution being stalled and blocked at every turn, more often than not by the very groups that publicly pay lip service to it. You’re right about the timing being a little suspicious.

• 20. BARRASSO  |  June 27th, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  What a load of total horseflop,

  “Soooo the libbys don’t want you to build solar panels because you will disturb a fuzzy tailed rat? Environmental loons say, “hey, you can’t build there until we study the impact on the surrounding rocks!”

  Have any of you read the post, it states the BLM is making solar power companies obey the law, the environmentalists aren’t stopping anything. Even the BLM isn’t stopping anything they are making sure of the impact with a standard study, when they are done they will decide on the merits. Of course the BLM guys I talk to say they have been so stripped of power by the Bush admin. that they cannot stop obvious lawbreaking when it comes to oil and natural gas leases. So I wonder why solar power is being held up for a couple years yet oil is not even monitored, HHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

• 21. bagni  |  June 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  spookpeesh;
  us lucy in the sky shipmates
  have never suggested taking away guns
  we’re with you
  try to take away our phasers
  and you’ll be getting pulsed
  we’re just wondering
  how many more handguns do you really need to produce?
  there’s plenty in the pipeline for centuries of bloodshed

• 22. Ricorun  |  June 27th, 2008 at 4:58 pm

  I think this issue is a perfect example of a situation where people on both sides (and everyone in between) gets to sling poo at each other without knowing with any certainty what they’re talking about. Guys like Barrasso want to blame BLM without recognizing (or at least acknowledging) that potentially covering hundreds of square miles of desert with mirrors really is worth serious study. Others want to blame environmental groups for being too uppity without recognizing (or at least acknowledging) that potentially covering hundreds of square miles of desert with mirrors really is worth serious study.

  Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere in between. I recognize that potentially covering hundreds of square miles of desert with mirrors really is worth serious study. But at the same time I do wonder about the whole moratorium part of it, and whether it might be politically motivated. But on the basis of what I know a present, though it sounds like a set-back, it’s not a deal-killer. If anything, the bigger deal-killer by far would be if congress fails to extend the ITC (or replace it with something of a similar sort) before it expires in Dec. If that happens, many hundreds of millions of investment dollars already in the pipeline will fall out of the pipeline. And if that happens the moratorium won’t have much of an effect. And if that happens it will set back the industry far more than a two-year moratorium would.

  Also keep in mind that there is no reason in the world why the moratorium can’t be easily revisited by the next president. Despite all the apparent hand-wringing in the industry and elsewhere, I think everyone gets it. On the other hand, tailing to extend the ITC (or coming up with a viable alternative in the interrim) is A..Very..Big..Deal. That would be much harder to recover from.

  While reading through the comments on this thread I was encouraged to see that most people, regardless of their political persuasion, get how important it is to keep solar technology in play. So my advice would be to contact your congresscritters and tell them to KNOCK IT OFF!! Tell them to get their poo together and stop throwing it at each other. This is way too important. Don’t kill this industry for the sake of scoring cheap political points.

• 23. Kahn  |  June 27th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

  bagni - how to support the unions, solve global warming, and support socialism.

  1. Buy an American made pistol and ammunition
  2. Will all your belongings to the government
  3. Shoot yourself

  It is only your greed and selfishness that keeps you from doing it.

• 24. Kahn  |  June 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

  Rico, covering hundreds of square miles of the hundreds of thousands of square miles. There is a LOT of desert.

  This could be done here, in Africa, Asia,and Australia. Actually - Antarctica is desert also. It’s just that the snow that has fallen doesn’t go anywhere.

• 25. Gozer the Carpathian  |  June 27th, 2008 at 7:13 pm

  Well living in the land that pioneers a lot of solar projects (I live in Barstow where we have SOLAR ONE) I’ve seen how much land these plants eat up.

  Personally I think that land was just sitting there before so I have no qualms letting others put up their solar plants there. I wish them the best of luck making whatever they can off of them.

  From what I’ve seen (since I AM looking at putting solar panels on my house) we here in deserts are the only ones who get good returns on solar panels. Everyone else seems to get screwed due to operating temperatures and such.

  Now I can only go by the sales information and such like this:

  http://www.akeena.net/cm/Residential_Solar_Power/What_Size_System_Do_I_Need.html

  Typical San Francisco Bay Area Solar Power System
  There is an average of 5.5 hours of full sun per day at a 70% annualized efficiency for a well designed solar energy systems. With 18 high output modules, each producing 160 watts peak, this solar energy system will generate approximately 4,000 kwh per year — or about $935 worth of energy per year at current rates.

  Typical New York/New Jersey/ New England Area Solar Power System
  There is an average of 4.6 hours of full sun per day at a 70% annualized efficiency for well designed systems. With 17 high output modules (lower operating temperatures reduce the number of modules you can install on a single inverter), each producing 160 watts peak, this system will generate approximately 3,200 kwh per year — or about $384 worth of energy per year at current rates.

  That’s of course assuming you’ve got room for that many panels (most folks probably do), your power usage occurs doing these times (or you’ve got some sort of battery storage system set-up to use this power later), and your zoning even allows for them.

  There are lots of folks in my area using solar panels and every one of them continues to need the power off of the grid. While it is possible to become a “zero sum” energy user the grid energy is still needed to make up the difference when your solar panels aren’t working or you’re using more power than normal.

  Solar is great, I’m not knocking it, but it’s not the end all and be all of power generation.

• 26. phnx  |  June 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

  Ohhh the sweet irony of environmental wacko plans being stalled by environmental impact studies for which the enviro wackos lobbied.

• 27. Ricorun  |  June 27th, 2008 at 10:44 pm

  Kahn: Rico, covering hundreds of square miles of the hundreds of thousands of square miles. There is a LOT of desert.

  There is indeed. But the point is, the guys in the solar industry don’t have designs on just hundreds of square miles, they have designs on THOUSANDS of square miles. Actually, tens of thousands of square miles. Scientific American recently ran an extensive article that (as I recall) indicated that in order to supply the US with 70% of its electricity with solar power it would require (at the efficiencies of present solar conversion products) about 30,000 square miles to be covered in some combination of mirrors or PV cells.

  That’s a bunch, and something that has to be considered seriously. On the other hand, it might be worth while to put it in perspective. For one thing, how does it compare to coal strip mines? I dunno. Do you? How about the tar sands projects in Alberta? I hear that the tar sands projects have already denuded an area (of what was once mostly arboreal forest, by the way) the size of Florida. I looked it up: Forida is 58,664 sq miles. That’s an even bigger bunch. Just the tailing ponds now occupy 130 sq km, and they are incredibly toxic. If a ducky so much as lands in one it’s bye bye ducky. Among the residents of the area, rare forms of cancer aren’t so rare anymore. Because of the seepage of the exposed compounds from the pits themselves into the atmosphere the surrounding forests are also suffering. Oh, and don’t eat the fish. In fact, don’t drink the water. In short, if Alberta doesn’t get their butts in gear PDQ they have a disaster of epic proportions in the making. The oil companies keep saying that everything will be fine, and eventually they’ll work things out. And maybe they will. I wouldn’t rule it out. The trouble is, it’s nowhere close to a guarantee, either. Did I mention that those tailing ponds now occupy 130 sq km? You can see them from space. Originally it was thought that the toxic solids would simply precipitate out as the water leached out of the tailing ponds into the ground water. And to an extent it has, but not nearly to the extent anticipated. And that is exceedingly fortunate in retrospect, because it has prevented Alberta from becoming an obvious disaster of epic proportions in the present tense into one of a potential disaster of epic proportions in the future. That’s a good thing. It means there’s still time.

  I think it stands to reason that no matter what choices are made they are going to be difficult. And no matter what the choice it can’t possibly be the best alternative for everyone or everything involved. On another site I visit frequently one of the posters featured a bit by the recently deceased George Carlin:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
  The bit was all about the absurdity of saving the planet. It was great because he hid, right out in the open and in front of everyone, the essential irony in what he was saying. And that is this: the planet isn’t going anywhere — WE are. And if we don’t come to grips with the difference, eventually the planet will “shake us off like a bad case of fleas.” And if we don’t, according to him the answer to the question of “why are we here?” is likely to be “plastic”. Lol! It’s a great bit, not to mention food for thought

• 28. Kahn  |  June 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am

  Rico,

  30,000 square miles is only a square 173.2 miles by 173.2 miles. Just a drop in the bucket of the desert lands in the southwest. I had no idea we were talking about such a small amount of area.

  But solar isn’t the ONLY part of the solution. We can put windmills all over the place. And we can put micro generators in streams, creeks, and rivers.

  Nuclear breeder reactors could supplement and help smooth the supply. We’ll still need oil and natural gas for some transportation needs and for plastics and other petroleum based product.

  So in short, I’m for it all. More oil, more wind, more hydro, more solar, everything. I’m even for coal if it can be clean. And bio also, so long as it doesn’t intrude on the food supply.

  But, is that the liberal plan? I don’t think so.

  The liberal plan is to force oil companies to drill for oil in leased areas where there isn’t oil. And, to tax them. And to investigate speculators ( I wonder if they’re checking up on George Soros, he has a felony history in this area). I see them saying they want to unilaterally modify NAFTA - an agreement with the two nations supplying the bulk of our oil.

  I don’t see how any of these actions lead to additional or different energy sources.

  I don’t see liberals doing anything to promote nuclear, solar, wind, or hydroelectric power.

• 29. JustAnotherTaxpayer  |  June 29th, 2008 at 1:08 am

  Agree with anybody that environmentalists are being silly here. My only concern would be the constuction of a facility that would produce the maximum amount of juice.
  Enviornmentalist wackos…in this case definitley.

• 30. Guy Dauncey  |  July 4th, 2008 at 10:25 pm

  The solar revolution actually makes enormous sense.

  For a totally well researched paper that argues how the US could produce 10% of its power needs from solar by 2025 (8% PV, 2% concentrated solar thermal), see the Utility Solar Assessment (USA) Study, June 2008. (www.solarcatalyst.com/utilitysolarstudy.pdf)

  As an aside, and as a Canadian, it always hurts me see see how much energy some people waste being rude, sarcastic, and harsh to each other, instead of having a calm and intelligent debate. But then hey, I’m British and Canadian, so what do I know?

• 31. alaska snow removal&hellip  |  August 11th, 2008 at 3:01 am

  alaska snow removal

  The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August

Leave a Comment

Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Matt Margolis on Twitter