Feinstein: Don't Spoil Our Desert With Solar Panels

WASHINGTON -- California's Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.

Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.

www.foxnews.com...


I mean what else can I say. They dont want nuclear, coal, or oil and yet these same morons like Kennedy dont want the "clean energy" in their backyards either. Kennedy made it very clear he didnt want wind farms off of his coastline because it would obstruct views and now Feinstein says she doesnt want solar farms in her neck of the woods. People this is getting ridiculous. These criminals in Washington seem to push the envelope on impotence on a daily basis.

This is a prime example of the liberal agenda. They are going to tell us to get off fossil feuls, to find alternative methods to heat and cool our homes and businesses: as long as they don't have to look out their windows and see the solutions.
It's time we vote the bastards out, or recall them, and have new elections, encouraging liberatarians and green party candidates. The only exception to the recall would be Dr. Ron Paul.

reply to post by mybigunit


"Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres"

500.000 acres is a lot of land, but that isn't the big issue it's being made out to be.

Those nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on "A" parcel of that 500,000 desert acres. Not all of it.
Just how big is that parcel of land? Even 1,000 acres doesn't seem very big against 500,000 acres.

"Sen. Dianne Fein(Swine)stein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public." (I see her (Among many others) as nothing more than a career politician and have long lost faith in anything she says.)

How much of those 500,000 acres will be used in those applications?, and more importantly, how much of that land used in those applications was donated by the conservationists?

When those "Conservationists" decided to donate that land to the public, they gave up their say in what happens to it.

At that moment, it became public land and will be used in whatever way SOMEONE ELSE decides will benefit everyone whether you like the end use of it or not.


If you own land and want to keep control over it, don't ever sell or donate it to anyone.

It looks like someone is figuring that going green is going to "cost" something more than a little change.

I just hope that in the rush to preserve the environment, they don't destroy it.

When they consider the "actual" costs, how long will solar or wind power stay in fashion? Solar and wind power generation requires a very precious commodity...real estate. I do not support utilizing anymore of my state resources to provide California more power sources. Let 'em freeze in the dark.

No, I do not want my beautiful Arizona deserts paved with solar; and the ferriginous pygmy owl habitat would be decimated by windmills. The benefits do not match cost.

Palo Verde Nuclear station was built outside of Phoenix because the "users" didn't want it in their backyard. I think we took care not to repeat that mistake, again, in the future.

I'm sorry to say this, as it may sound overboard, but it is just like that dude who falsified data on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, this woman is a criminal and deserves the death penalty.

It sucks to advocate violence like that, but think about it... This woman is telling people we need to stay on the war-driven fossil fuel method because putting solar panels in the desert will spoil the landscape?!!!
That is absurd. And it is dangerous.
It costs lives.
Bunches of them. Each and every day we stay on an energy grid that is outdated for the sake of profit that requires war, which in turn costs LOTS AND LOTS of lives, we lose our morality even moreso.

We have the capability to move away from this chaos, but we actively choose not to pursue it at the detriment of anyone who stands in the profiteers' way.



This woman should be strung up. I'm sorry for being so "radical" with my words. This is a disgrace to everything I consider decent.

You know maybe it is time they took this to the American people. I mean really we all have a roof. (if we haven't been foreclosed on that is.) Perhaps put them up and allow the persons who own the home to use the energy and at the same time send energy back into the system. Including a small tax rebate for those who decide to help would also be in good terms with helping to get this thing off the ground. There is alot more than 500,000 acres of roof space in this country!

They WON'T put this up to the American people. That is the "beauty" of a Representative Republic. We don't get to decide these matters. We put people in place for us to make these decisions.
Sounds good, unless your reps decide that they know better than you do. They will vote against your wishes in a heartbeat if it keeps the system in place.
And they do so regularly.

This is disgraceful.

Look at the bailout fiasco as an indicator. I'm sure the people on the hill were SHOCKED to notice that the idiots in America even cared enough to tell them no. Didn't matter, they did it anyhow.

Speaking in idealogical terms doesn't work at this point. They make decisions based SOLELY on profit. It is time that something changes.

Ya know. I've been reading this and much of the other actions of our leaders here on ats and I just honestly don't see how they could possibly expect us to believe them at all on most anything now.

With California’s multi-billion dollar budget deficit and unemployment of close to 10.5%, one would think that the esteemed reps of California would want business to come to the state, and you know, bring jobs and tax revenue. But I guess having pristine desert is way more valuable.

reply to post by xoxo stacie


This is a good solution. The grid is already in place. We could sell product to the power company in exchange for rent of rooftop space.

I looked into going solar a few years ago, the program was as I outlined above, with all kinds of fed. and state rebates/ tax credits...

Only draw back was, all the electricity produced went to the grid, and storage batteries could not be utilized. So, if it were night, and the power grid went down, I'd be in the dark.

The electric company told me the program had been suspended, due to not having suitable equipment. The inverter was not of a large enough size to handle the job, and when one was built to handle the load, they would be in touch...
I haven't moved, and they have yet to contact me.

I have noticed they have a lower wattage system at nearly twice the cost,
but, I would not be interested in less for more.

I guess what I am saying is your idea is very good, but I don't think there is the equipment out that makes it worthwhile.

Wow these people are ridiculous.

Who cares? It's the dessert, what is there to see other than sand, and your odd lizard.

If this project can help the US provide itself with large ammounts of renewable energy, then I see no reason why we would not do that. The "aesthetic" value of the land is longer important.

This is getting serious folks. We really do have an energy crisis and a warming planet, (the sun, not us) it is critical that we develop the means to power ourselves without relying on a natural resource that can dissappear in a few hundred years.

I could understand if the land had some historic value to it, you know Native American lands or a National Park, or having some endangered species that would be at risk. But when your only quam to this whole thing is worried about the "look" you loose the argument pure and simple.

~Keeper

I think it is a hard balance cause we want to lower emissions but the alternative can interfere w/ natural habitat..if every co. wasn't greedy we would all have solar panels on our houses and find other ways that wouldn't totally destroy the "landscape"....I dont think it is appealing myself but right now its our best alternative until people can afford to be energy efficient in every home...?

No surprises here. When they talked of putting windmills in the Atlantic off the coast of Mass, Teddy Kennedy and his ilk got all hot and bothered that it would lower property values. Just more of the same liberal BS.

but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.

That is the biggest BS statement I have ever heard.
what conservationists donated what land to the public in the Calif desert.
very very little land in the Calif desert has ever been donated to the public.
a lot larger amounts have been taken from private owners by the conservationists

I have been involved in the land rights movement in the Calif desert for over 45 years and have worked with the state and federal agencies that control the pubic land. I served on the BLM off road recreation committee for over 5 years and have never heard of any conservationists donated land that is open for the public use. (what little donated land is wilderness land and closed to all but hiking. and that is only a couple months a year due to the temperature extremes here in the desert.)

The only thing I agree with her on is I don't want more public land closed for use in building solar or wind projects ether.

The Calif desert does not have the water resources to support these projects. and yes they do take large amounts of water for dust control construction and for the housing of the employees that run these projects.

The the federal government and LA Department of Water and Power took most of the water resources from the Calif desert years ago and what is left is not for there use in supporting these type projects

I think the words of Sam Kinison are most appropriate here:

"You know what this is? It's sand! Know what it's going to be 100 years from now? SAND!"

clear cut the ancient forests for big macs, but don't make shade in the desert for the survival of the earth.

awesome priorites, sion.

typical liberal: come on guys, you are destroying our ozone layer using gas vehicles, buy a prius, its nice and doesnt use horrible fossil fuel that we will run out of in a few years. use coal energy and solar energy. just make sure you use clean coal *no such thing* and make sure you dont build those wind turbines in our backyard.



[edit on 22-3-2009 by Swatman]

Oh cmon really? Turtles? Do these idiots think that turtles can't, I don't know, MOVE ON THEIR OWN? Shesh oh pete.

Putting a bunch of solar panels in the desert isn't going to screw up a bunch of turtles. I think they just might go around.

What this is really about is that this senator feinstein is probably getting money from the oil and coal industry and so is wanting to block renewable energy like solar power so that Feinstein can get more money in the till.

It is a horrible display, really.
Yes, she is being paid to try and block it.
She is a criminal.

So basically she says - desert for the people, not power (though electrical one,but still power) to the people.
I really love nature, and while i love forests more - we have a lot of deserts here too. Desert has its beauty, desert has its animals,its biosphere. But come on!!! We daily ruin habitats much more complex and much more important. She cares for animals - there should be a reserve.Ok, huge reserve. Ok, gigantic reserve. That leaves what - half a desert at least, barren from human perspective, for production of energy and preventing (well,actually postponing) destruction of richer (in wildlife and fertility) habitats.
Is is that hard to figure out?