It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Environmentalists oppose Obama plan to develop solar energy

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Environmentalists oppose Obama plan to develop solar energy

Well jeesh !!!

Obama and his Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and his Energy Secretary Steven Chu go through hell to get some land set aside and what happens?

It's not good enough apparently !!

It will cause more "greenhouse emissions" so says several environmental groups.

damned if they do, damned if they don't


The Obama administration has identified 285,000 acres of western public lands on which to create solar zones and develop the alternative energy source, but the plan faces opposition from environmentalists who say it will harm the planet.

The blueprint for the solar energy zones calls for 17 large-scale projects that it predicts would create 5,900 megawatts of energy to provide electricity to nearly two million homes.

“Developing America’s solar energy resource is an important part of President (Barack) Obama’s commitment to expanding American-made energy, increasing energy security and creating jobs,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement announcing the plan......



..... But several environmental groups led by the Western Lands Project (WLP) filed a protest with the Interior Department on Aug. 24 calling the plan “deficient,” citing evidence they say suggests that disturbing the soil will release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

“No scientific evidence has been presented to support the claim that these projects reduce greenhouse emissions,” the WLP said. “Indeed, recent evidence suggests that the opposite may be true. Recent work at the Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside, suggests that soil disturbance from large-scale solar development may disrupt Pleistocene-era caliche deposits that release carbon to the atmosphere when exposed to the elements,” negating any solar development gains.....


I wonder if real estate prices have anything to do with this ?


Now What ?





posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
For a certain segment of tree-huggers any sort of energy-generation is perceived as "harmful". Sneezing on the grass is viewed as an offensive and atrocious crime-against-humanity that will destroy the ever so delicate and sensitive souls of the blades of grass.
edit on 13-9-2012 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Raving lunatics...tried to work with them and they bit the hand that was extended...whatever....trash the idea and open more coal fired power plants...that'll teach them to be more cooperative next time...if there is a next time.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Possibly the real-estate prices--or that it will disturb their personal playground. NIMBYs are NIMBYs, no matter what their political stripe....
edit on 9/13/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Actually, these folks sound like agent provocateurs, not actual environmentalists.

Reminds me of the folks around here that are opposed to a wind project because it will "ruin their views".

Fun fact: the majority of those are not originally from my state. They're Massholes.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

The plan also calls for additional solar development on 19 million acres of so-called “variance” areas outside of the solar zones. In total, it could create enough renewable energy to power seven million homes, federal officials say.

That's a lot of land that the government is planning on turning over to companies. My biggest concern would be is the land going to be sold to companies at fair market value or will it be given to them along with some grants.

Compared to a coal power plant, it's a huge waste of land. This Coal plant is on 306 acres and produces 1,500 megawatts. And don't forget about all the power lines they'll need to connect everything.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   


Caliche is a sedimentary rock, a hardened deposit of calcium carbonate.




caliche meets the chemical composition requirements and has been used as a principal raw material in Portland cement production...




caliche can also be used as a building material that will exceed the building code requirements




In many areas, caliche is also used for road construction, either as a surfacing material or, more commonly, as a base material.


??? Caliche is already used in construction worldwide...Do we have to ban Portland cement production and unfired masonry materials? because disturbing caliche may release carbon.

Caliche is widely used as a base / raw material when it is locally available and cheap.

Wikipedia - Caliche

In my view they can extract the caliche and make $$$ with it AND build the solar pannel in the same time...

its not even hard to extract



Caliche generally forms when minerals are leached from the upper layer of the soil (the A horizon) and accumulate in the next layer (the B horizon), at depths of approximately three to 10 feet under the surface


Its a wini-win situation...no?

I generally agreed with environment groups concerns ( think about fraking, offshore drilling etc.. ) but i can't on this one.

Jeremiah65 said :



trash the idea and open more coal fired power plants


Exactly, is that what they want ? Generally you choose the lesser evil

.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
280,000 acres that only provided electricty of 2 million homes?

Not a tree hugger but anyone with half a brain can see the stupidity and waste of land on that one.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I think these so called environmentalists are huffing greenhouse gas. They must be high on something because this is just nutz.

edit on 13-9-2012 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
These aren't environmentalists.

They're pagan nature worshipers.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
280,000 acres that only provided electricty of 2 million homes?

Not a tree hugger but anyone with half a brain can see the stupidity and waste of land on that one.


I agree, that is a lot of land. The article stated :

"The solar zones are located in six states including California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah on property controlled by the Bureau of Land Management."

From the pic in the article, I am assuming this is mostly desert...more or less useless land for agriculture or habitation...might as well do something useful with it if it cannot be used any other way.
edit on 13-9-2012 by Jeremiah65 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Many large facilities and buildings use solar energy. It's interesting to me the Mars rover is using solar energy - so to me it seems viable we can save money, save the icecaps, and slow global warming by supplementing our electric use with solar panels. It seems like a no brainer. That someone is fighting solar energy is suspicious to me.

The Rovers Energy


The rover requires power to operate. Without power, it cannot move, use its science instruments, or communicate with Earth. The main source of power for each rover comes from a multi-panel solar array. They look almost like "wings," but their purpose is to provide energy, not fly. When fully illuminated, the rover solar arrays generate about 140 watts of power for up to four hours per sol (a Martian day).



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by xuenchen
 



Many large facilities and buildings use solar energy. It's interesting to me the Mars rover is using solar energy - so to me it seems viable we can save money, save the icecaps, and slow global warming by supplementing our electric use with solar panels. It seems like a no brainer. That someone is fighting solar energy is suspicious to me.

The Rovers Energy


The rover requires power to operate. Without power, it cannot move, use its science instruments, or communicate with Earth. The main source of power for each rover comes from a multi-panel solar array. They look almost like "wings," but their purpose is to provide energy, not fly. When fully illuminated, the rover solar arrays generate about 140 watts of power for up to four hours per sol (a Martian day).


The new rover Curiosity has a nuclear power source, not solar.
www.slate.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


What other non polluting alternatives can you conjure up in the middle of a deserted area that's a sun trap?

Why not make the inhospitable area useful?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by neo96
 


What other non polluting alternatives can you conjure up in the middle of a deserted area that's a sun trap?

Why not make the inhospitable area useful?


Considering the billions in government subsidies that go straight to corporate pockets that already go to alternative energies, and the decades of ineffcient usage of lands that have fallen in to decay wouldn't it be wise for urban renewal instead of taking over new land?

Also given inclimate weather and a centralize power structure another smart move would be to decentralize the power grids meaning every home with solar panels,shingles,vertical wind turbines etc and expand accordingly to population growth.

I am not even close to being an environmentalist but I do see the waste of land resources that is not being used the way it should be.

Another thing that bugs the hell out of me with the push for alternative energy is that is based on the climate, that same crowd is always going around screaming global warming,global cooling the sky is falling etc. the climate is changing.

Makes no sense.
edit on 14-9-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
280,000 acres that only provided electricty of 2 million homes?

Not a tree hugger but anyone with half a brain can see the stupidity and waste of land on that one.


For some reason I have this picture of more Area 51 type military bases sprouting up out of nowhere. Land the government claims ownership of so they can build and do whatever they want while making it a punishable act to come within a certain distance of it.

I sure wouldn't want to go anywhere near a base like that, chances are you would be detained for however long they deem it necessary as every American citizen is a hostile combatant these days.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





I am not even close to being an environmentalist


I find this troubling and so disturbing on many levels.
Trying to wrap my mind around it and figure where you are coming from....

And yet you are human, no?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


You are absolutely right!

That particular rover is thermo-nuclear powered for a 2 year mission and will not be returning to earth.

However NASA relies on solar energy where ever and when ever it can and has used it successfully to fuel some of the most challenging and demanding endevours.

The point is that Solar Power is the "go to" for advanced technological agencies and many others who want efficiency, cost savings and environmental integrity.

This is probably why the gas and coal industry need to double down efforts (denying climate change and vilifying environmentalists) to make sure EVERYONE ELSE is still in love with their heat and pollution producing, water poisoning, earth destroying, wildlife killing product.

I'm in love with the sun.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

My quotes reference your linked article, here:
www.humanevents.com ...

First, there's this:

.........
But several environmental groups led by the Western Lands Project (WLP) filed a protest with the Interior Department on Aug. 24 calling the plan “deficient,” citing evidence they say suggests that disturbing the soil will release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

“No scientific evidence has been presented to support the claim that these projects reduce greenhouse emissions,” the WLP said. “Indeed, recent evidence suggests that the opposite may be true. Recent work at the Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside, suggests that soil disturbance from large-scale solar development may disrupt Pleistocene-era caliche deposits that release carbon to the atmosphere when exposed to the elements,” negating any solar development gains
.......

I'd like to see some studies performed to verify or debunk this.

Secondly, and more importantly, there's this:

.......
The groups also cite the relocation or other mitigation efforts to offset the effects on threatened and endangered species as a “severe, unresolved concern.” Those species include the Mojave fringe-toed lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, golden eagle, desert bighorn and desert tortoise.

Environmentalists say they are concerned the solar zones will devastate “one of the last remaining floristic frontiers in the United States.”

Instead of public landscapes, the environmentalists want the solar projects to be constructed on the rooftops of residential and commercial buildings and parking lots.

“By converting public lands to industrial energy factories in fragile, remote areas with massive requirements for transmission at great cost to ratepayers and the environment, our renewable energy policy is taking the least enlightened path possible, while attempting to create the illusion of innovation and progress,” WLP said
.........

Did you address this?

I agree that building residential solar power is potentially more earth-friendly. On the other hand, getting enough people to build solar power units on their roofs is another matter.

Which is better? Building on residential roofs, or on open land?

One key reminder is that solar power is the only real onsite energy production capacity available for residential use. You can't build a nuclear reactor in your backyard or a coal power plant, for example. You can't drill oil or frack. Building windmills is not effective unless you have lots of land. By declining to exploit its strong point, centralizing solar power might hamper its success.

By decentralizing the electric grid, it helps to protect against brownouts or power outages. Broadly, decentralization operates on the principle that putting all your eggs in one basket is bad. The internet operates this way. If one part of it fails to operate, it has limited effect elsewhere.

We have to judge the worthiness of decentralization and the use of solar for these ends in the presence of the knowledge that it's possibly more expensive (at the present time) than building in a centralized fashion. Possibly, decentralization might have indirect benefits that increase its value to us. Historically, we've been a nation of centralization. Decentralizing energy is new to us. Ultimately, whatever the money sheet says is what determines what gets built. So it's very important to do this soon, since centralized solar power plants are not easily undone if we change our mind.
edit on 14-9-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join