US government to review controversial Solar Energy Zones

Late last year the Obama administration released a draft plan that identified 24 potential solar energy zones on public land in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah.

That draft plan prompted 80,000 comments from the public, many from conservation groups which have long argued that large solar farms will have an undue impact on desert habitats in the western US.

source

"As we encourage innovation and the deployment of technologies ... we are also moving forward with an enduring solar energy programme that will further spur private sector job creation and solar power production."

I think the government is using the environmentalists as a tool to regulate a cheap source of power. How do you destroy a desert ecosystem? They don't have much of one to begin with!

Reply to post by Evolutionsend

No oil - air water pollution

No nuclear - too dangerous

No wind - kills birds

No hydro - kills fish

No solar - destroys desert



What exactly do these idiots propose we do for energy?




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Bottle the bs coming from Washington DC and that will solved the world's energy crisis.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


We could try farting and using the methane traces, but farting is against the law as well.

Guy : "Hey why is it that the 1% that worked their hardest even destroying certain friendships and their liberties to get their money, how come WE can't have any of their monies?"

USA: "Because that's called stealing and would be a violation of personal rights"

Guy: "Gibe moni pls"

USA: "Ok, at the cost of your rights."

Guy: "WTF Why violate my rights trying to 'protect' these freedoms, I just want the 1% to stop hoarding all their hard-earned cash"

Act 2:

Guy: "Hey stop destroying the world with Oil and fossil fuels and do something good for once and use alternative energy"

USA: "Ok, at the cost of desert habitats"

Guy: "WTF Why destroy desert habitats to create more Solar energy zones, I just don't want to pay for Oil"

I have yet to make an Act 3 but that about sums it up for now

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Watch Planet Earth .. Deserts have very large and complex eco systems with very unique life forms. I for one agree.. we shouldn't pave over thousands of acres with huge solar farms. The easiest and most directly cost effective way to utilize solar energy is to place solar panels on HOMES and BUSINESSES. Not destroying pristine eco systems for the sake of "cheap energy".

I have personally witnessed a solar installation, at a public school, I do lawn care at. It took a few months and get this ..10 acres of land wiped out to accomplish the project. Even as a Conservative that I am, my outdoormen background leans liberal. It is the biggest waste of land space I have seen in years. It looks like h3ll also.

I know for a fact the upkeep wasn't planned for also in the budget for the panels. It is all fine until the tax payers have to take another hit to compensate for their mistakes. Anymore, I believe they purposely omit items to keep costs lower only to re-submit them at a later date.

...How do you destroy a desert ecosystem? They don't have much of one to begin with!

That has got to be one of the most ignorant things I have heard on ATS in a long time.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I think that the master plan is to have human sized hamster wheels in every home, positioned in point blank range of a television.

I can see nearly one hundred wind turbines from my house...all of which are on converted farm land. These things are seem a benefit creating a million dollars a year for the locals, but there will always be someone battling from the other side. Fear of change is what I see here.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


I think that the master plan is to have human sized hamster wheels in every home, positioned in point blank range of a television.

I can see nearly one hundred wind turbines from my house...all of which are on converted farm land. These things are seem a benefit creating a million dollars a year for the locals, but there will always be someone battling from the other side. Fear of change is what I see here.

reply to post by mugger


I don't know why Conservatives feel like they're defying traditional Conservative values when they support environmentalist ideologies. I for one am very far-right in my beliefs.. but I'm also a very big environmentalist. In fact I would say environmentalism fits right into the core beliefs of Conservatism?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Can you think of a better place to build a solar power "zone"?

reply to post by Evolutionsend


I can!

The answer is simple: DON'T!

reply to post by Rockpuck


You'd prefer barrels of radioactive material berried deep underground? I guess you've forgotten that our primary source of electricity produces a waste that we can't dispose of?

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Hmm? read above..

reply to post by Rockpuck


We as a nation rely on nuclear power. We can't get rid of the radioactive material that is a byproduct of such power generation. We're going to have to send it to space eventually. So I ask you again, do you have a better idea?

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Say what?

We get just under 50% from COAL
We get 20% from Natural Gas

We get 18% from Nuclear.

Plastering over thousands, if not millions of acres of desert to replace 18% of the energy source in this country is NOT an option.. As I said above, you'd get a better benefit by placing panels on the roofs of homes and businesses (especially warehouses) that feeds into the Grid..

reply to post by Rockpuck


20% from nuclear, and it's going up. Ideally they want to get rid of coal burning power plants altogether because they're even worse and more immediate than nuclear. We have to do something, or we're going to pollute the planet to death before we leave it as an organism. If you've got a better way that will actually work, spill it. Solar power on rooftops was deemed a waste of time a long time ago. We have to meet in the middle somewhere or nothing will change.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


No, 18% and dropping. It was once a bit higher, with 50 nuclear reactors in the country. However the last reactor that was built was in 1977 .. and the last converted between 1977 to today was in 1996. I think you have your priorities a bit mixed up here, because Nuclear Power is not really that big of an issue when you're talking about it from an environmental view point.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Yes, radioactive waste that can't be disposed of and won't reach save levels for hundreds of years is not at all bad for the environment.

source

In the past, much of the TRU waste was disposed of similarly to low-level radioactive waste, i.e., in pits and trenches covered with soil. In 1970, the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to the DOE) decided that TRU waste should be stored for easy retrieval to await disposal at a repository. Federal facilities in Washington, Idaho, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, and Illinois are currently storing TRU waste.

That sounds great for the environment! Can we ship some of this to the desert? I'm sure a lush thriving ecosystem can appreciate this stuff, and there's no groundwater to contaminate.

/sarcasm