Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
US halts solar energy projects over environment fears
telegraph.co.uk — The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants.The Bureau of Land Management says the moratorium on solar proposals is needed to determine how a new generation of large-scale projects could affect plants and wildlife.
kianat- 1134 diggs
- digg it
- starfocus03, on 06/28/2008, -6/+125*smacks forehead with hand... why oh why!
- skidme, on 06/28/2008, -4/+11Should've had a V8!
- jadrian, on 06/28/2008, -2/+25It's says why in the article. Because it "is required by law and backed by environmental groups". Why would anyone with as much as half a brain expect such a large scale project not to need a proper environmental impact study?
- Scruffydan, on 06/28/2008, -3/+9It is just odd that Bush chose this as his first attempt to be environmentally responsible
- trogdor282, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8I understand the need for the study, but solar's been around since the Carter administration. Nobody thought to get this out of the way?
- malex, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3It's not that solar panels might be dangerous in any way, it's the large-scale installations that are being examined.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -9/+3You are making a HUGE assumption to say that the Liberals who come up with these ideas (after they steal the critical ideas from some conservative engineer or inventor) every bother to "think" at all.
>.>
If these left-wing radicals had a brain cell in their heads, they'd be conservatives.
- digitalghost1, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7If solar power is going to be deployed across large areas of public lands then it seems sensible to do a environmental impact study, get it right the first time. I can agree on lifting the bureaucratic red-tape faster on these projects, an executive order to fast track the study can help perhaps (won't be the first time)? If not a real act of trying to get things done, then at least a symbol that the administration takes this seriously.
Solar Power FTW!
http://www.israel-times.com/business/2007/10/israe ... - yazheirx, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6The environmentalists have been doing this to builders for decades. It looks like the neocons decided to use their game against them.
It is a childish move, but not one that the environmental movement has not used time and time again to prevent something they did not want.
Sad.- dkapuchino, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Solar energy is a conservative interest.
If we can create our own energy, we can detach our selves from oil that comes out of dictatorships.
- dkapuchino, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Solar energy is a conservative interest.
- KhanneaNL, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1Murrca is loserville.
- gn0stik, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Because they are lumping all solar into one big group. They are imagining vast fields of PV cells. I'm pretty sure the US only has ONE project at this time that is based on cells. The others are solar thermal towers which take up much less space. However these projects will surely be banned along side the PV ones.
I have an idea for a solar-thermal tower based in-situ shale oil extraction process. I wonder how long it would take the BLM to lift this ban once they realized they could extract shale without mining, practically for free, once the towers were built, excess power could be sold off, and after the tower no longer produced oil, it could still produce electricity for decades.
These people are truly stupid. - kosmoss, on 06/28/2008, -5/+3It is irrelevant. usa is going down their own drain anyway. yea, digg me down yankees (monkeys?).
- gn0stik, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2You better hope not. The US is a huge force in the global economy. If we go down, (which we're not)we're taking a ***** of other countries with us.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1Hahaaaa! I can't wait until G-d sends his Meshiach and all of you haters are going to have to eat your words when you realize the Jews have been keeping the answer all along.
(8^D
When we all stand before G-d's own divine messenger you will be forced to choose between your own idolatrous, false "messiahs" and the One True G-d, Creator of The Universe, Sovereign over all worlds and times, who delivered The Children of Israel from their bonds under Pharoh in Egypt.
^^
Learn about the His Divine Law, His plan for The World to Come, which He gave to the Children of Israel through Moses at Mount Sinai and KNOW that we are all part of His plan, we are all truly brothers and sisters through our common grandfather, Noah.
http://www.noahidenations.com/
http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
http://www.edenics.org/ - Ebulating, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Pitlord, Jews have been waiting for a messiah for 5000 years. I don't think he's gonna show.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -8/+2Typical liberal B.S.
-_-
Oh, we want to save the environments! You can't has oils and nuclears powers, those are what we USED to use before teh interwebs!
>.>
Solar? Pffft! Totally, 5 min ago!
o.o
We are too smarticles for j00!! We gonna build ACVs to collect power crystals! FTW!!!- 180andback, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2You're a douchebag, so I blocked you. I feel much better now.
- brundlefly76, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Well, large-scale commercial solar plants do have an environmental impact because you are putting up a ***** of man-made materials over a very large surface. This energy generation per square foot isnt all the great either so it is a legitimate consideration.
However, commercial pv solar generation farms are far cheaper and more efficient than homeowner pv installs.
I think some company recently said in order to generate 90% of the US energy need, you would need to install solar panels on an area the size of vermont.
Its not like home solar panels where you put them on your roof which is an area already covered by a man-made structure - there is no increase in land usage. - Technopundit, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1They've had decades to accomplish this. It's just more B.S. trom the republican oil patch.
- cashman57, on 06/28/2008, -23/+110What are the Democrats thinking?
This is why Congress has the lowest approvals ever.- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -16/+60Democrat: Solar power will change our future for the better, any one can see the obvious eventual benefits, it's inevitable.
Oil lobby: here's a few million bucks, a gift, you know, cus we think you're so great, whatever.
Democrat: (OMG I'm rich, I'm rich, RICH, RICH, RICH, mo' money, mo' money,...)
Democrat: we need to fully understand the implications of solar power stations on desert wildlife. This will take a whole year...
Oil lobby: 2
Democrat: err, 2 whole years to, err, err..
Oil lobby: establish
Democrat: yes, two whole years to establish.
* Mindless drones applaud *
MSM clown: well we were going to talk about the government's new decision on solar energy, but we've just gotten word that Paris Hilton got drunk again and stripped off in public.
Clueless idiot #1: oh no she didn't.
Clueless idiot #2: hee hee, heh, tv news funny now, hee hee.
Oil lobby tools on digg: this decision is the best ever, blah blah free market, blah blah, oil makes no profit, blah blah, there're no political problems due to it's use, burning oil releases happy rainbow clouds...- gquaglia, on 06/28/2008, -13/+6You forgot its all Bush's fault.
- MortalynFlux, on 06/28/2008, -3/+18You should make this into a comic strip.
- hiPpymIck, on 06/28/2008, -7/+2and submit it to Digg tomorrow
- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3Re: MortalynFlux
If I could draw/photoshop worth a damn, I'd have had my own comic strip by now. - dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -7/+8You forgot the part at the beginning where Al Gore convinces the democrat to buy his carbon shares, then boards his private jet, and flies to Fiji on super-deluxe-oil-power.
- ogremidget, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2What about the tree-huggers who also like to hug a cactus now and then?
- libkarl2, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1skl1: I'm calling ***** on that. You are a lying troll and a moron!
The real chain of command is as follows:
Big Oil -> Executive Branch -> Dept of Interior -> Bureau of Land Management.
Look it up. - sk11, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Re: libkarl2
What the hell am I lying about you dimwitted pre-hominid, it's a ***** comic?! And, oh, I didn't know an incredibly esoteric titbit about the administrative politics of a foreign country (or so you claim, since I notice you didn't bother providing a source though, way to go *****), well ***** hell!
- kingofinternet, on 06/28/2008, -2/+31Bureau of Land Management is under the Department of the Interior, it's under the executive branch, not Congress.
MORONS!- libkarl2, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Thank you.
I was going to call ***** on some of these "Blame the Democrats" trolls. Not only is the BLM under the executive branch, it is (I know this from personal experience) one of the most corrupt and inept government agencies we have. - tito184, on 06/28/2008, -2/+7Stop making sense! This is Digg!
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Which Administration do you think GAVE the BLM these powers to begin with? And who do you think approved the creation of the BLM? And who do you think approves the administrators who RUN the BLM?
>.>
Starts with a "C."
o.O
Ends with "ongress…" - djm19, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2The BLM is a very old administration in the government. It its final form today its over 60 years old.
Congress could not have the foresight to predict that this relatively small branch of the executive office would put a moratorium on solar plant building. Thats such an obscure issue to assume is...an issue. You could not predict this would happen yesterday (unless you work for the office of the interior) - borealiz, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0the BLM is working under a set of laws passed by Congress in the 60's or 70's. This is the same amount of scrutiny they'd apply to oil drilling, logging, or whatever. But within those laws there's a lot of wiggle room and the BLM is generally more lenient with resource extraction or grazing, probably less so with this project. The BLM responds to pressure from presidents, congress, corporations, and citizens.
- libkarl2, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Thank you.
- Insightful, on 06/28/2008, -5/+22Hah, I see what you did there. Too bad the Bureau of Land Management is this administration - not this Congress. Bush is the one that killed this, not this Congress, or even the Democrats.
Furthermore, the Congress has low approval ratings because 1. the Public hates Republicans, and 2) the Public hates democrats for not having enough gut/spine/balls to stand up to the Republicans as evident by continuing to fund the war and capitulating on FISA.- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Except the public hates stupid, liberal, hippies even more.
>.>
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Except the public hates stupid, liberal, hippies even more.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -6/+0Another reason why congress and the president has a low approval rating. They just can't work together to get common sense things done. Incidentally, this is a much bigger problem for solar than a 2 year impact study on public lands.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ...
Expiring wind and solar tax credits
"If Congress doesn't act soon, many federal credits that have fueled the rapid growth of wind and solar energy in recent years will expire at the end of this year. Here are some of the key programs that would be affected:
Solar investment tax credit: The government now pays 30 percent of the cost to businesses to invest in solar power to meet their energy needs. Cost to extend for 10 years: $1.7 billion.
Residential energy-efficient property tax credit: Residential users also get a 30 percent tax credit for installing solar panels, geothermal heat pumps or small wind equipment. The tax credit, however, has a limit of $2,000, which lawmakers are trying to raise. Cost to extend for 10 years: $907 million.
Renewable energy production tax credit: This program gives wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable power sources a leg up with a 1.9-cent per kilowatt-hour credit, which makes them more competitive with natural gas or coal-fired power plants. Congress has let the tax credit lapse before, and each time investment in wind and other renewable energy projects dropped. Cost to extend for one year: $7 billion." - anywhere2, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5OMG, I can't believe how ignorant you people are. The BLM is responsible for this decision. The BLM is an extension of the executive office, AKA THE PRESIDENCY, NOT CONGRESS!!! The real irony here is that the BLM has fought tooth and nail to allow oil and mineral exploration on these lands. THEY NEVER ADVOCATE ENVIORMENTAL CONCERNS, UNTIL NOW!!!!
- TheBigBentley, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2Its amazing too that so many digg user will be voting for a......wait for it......wait.....wait.....democrat for president! Because we all want change dont we?
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -7/+4If liberals were capable of thought they'd be conservatives.
>.> - pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2To everyone pointing out that the BLM is under the Executive branch, this is from wikipedia:
"In the early twentieth century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. And the Oregon and California (O&C) Act of August 28, 1937, required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon.
In 1946, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land Office (a product of the country's territorial expansion and the federal government's nineteenth-century homesteading policies) to form the Bureau of Land Management within the Department of the Interior. When the BLM was initially created, there were over 2,000 unrelated and often conflicting laws for managing the public lands. The BLM had no unified legislative mandate until Congress enacted the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
In FLPMA, Congress recognized the value of the remaining public lands by declaring that these lands would remain in public ownership. Congress used the term "multiple use" management, defined as "management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people."
So, BLM was created by Congress to enforce the LAWS enacted by Congress regarding public lands. BLM is just doing their job enforcing the LAWS regarding environmental impact studies that were written and approved by Congress.
So yeah, this IS the Democrat's fault.
- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -16/+60Democrat: Solar power will change our future for the better, any one can see the obvious eventual benefits, it's inevitable.
- Morshade, on 06/28/2008, -4/+14so bad
- mayhemt, on 06/28/2008, -15/+1Some congressman ought to put 'Halting solar projects' in a bill & make a vote & send it to president. The president will surely veto it, without even reading it..
- RedPhalanx, on 06/28/2008, -5/+40Oh, the irony.
- dafragsta, on 06/28/2008, -5/+70The game is fixed.
- Nereus90, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5I just lost the game.
- Nappuccino, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Always when you least expect.
- Nereus90, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5I just lost the game.
- JazminMillion, on 06/28/2008, -18/+73As if the US government gives a ***** about plants and wildlife, I bet they are doing this so they can drill for oil instead! Why is Bush still around, anyone?
- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5But look how happy animals look playing about in oil:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/images/oceans/p ...
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Ph ...
/sarc - Insightful, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2Exactly. Bush and co. gets a hard on when they talk about drilling at ANWR, offshore, your backyard etc as if they can start drilling as early as tomorrow and somehow that is going to affect gas price (not really, they are lying).
However, when it comes come to do the first true scaling up of solar power, they are now demanding an environmental study which essentially kills this project.
A recent NYT report showed that the administration first tried to get an EPA official to recall an e-mail which concludes “greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled." This clearly contradicts this administration's perception of reality. When the EPA official refused, the White House then flat out said, we will not open your e-mail.
This administration's credibility on science and the environment is near zero.- mntbikeracer1, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1Sorry but you can blame your Democratic Congress for this one. I don't know why so many people think Bush has more power than he really does.
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -6/+8You *****, its the democrat-controlled congress that is pulling this *****. Quit blaming Bush, its the entire ***** government.
- ManyAsOne, on 06/29/2008, -1/+3If you'd actually read the article, you would have seen that it's the Bureau of Land Management that's 'pulling this *****'. The BLM is part of the executive branch, not the legislative. Congress didn't get a say in this decision.
- JoshJaros, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Answer: Nuclear Power Plant.
- TheBigBentley, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3Good logic. Do you blame everything in life on Bush?
- Youreallinsane, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1It is VERY suspicious...isn't it?
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2The BLM is doing this to uphold the laws and regulations regarding environmental protection that the liberal Congresses of have passed in the past.
-_-
If the BLM DIDN'T require an environmental impact report they'd be neglecting their duty to uphold the law. - reaperhatch, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1bush doesn't care about people.
- dafunkmonster, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1If its a good thing, God did it. If its a bad thing, Bush did it.
- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5But look how happy animals look playing about in oil:
- kanvas, on 06/28/2008, -4/+54In other news, oil production has been halted worldwide for fear of increasing gas prices.
- PlatinumOrgy, on 06/28/2008, -7/+0I well, I guess I better fill my basement with 'it's the end of the world' paraphernalia
- wolphcry, on 06/28/2008, -14/+8The idea of solar is green, but the product is not
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-si ...
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/2 ...- JazminMillion, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Very good point I did not realize that.
- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Yeah, and oil use releases happy rainbow clouds.
- wolphcry, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1read below.
- wolphcry, on 06/28/2008, -4/+5I guess from the negative diggs above that no one wants to hear the dirty side of solar. I guess 15 years down the road when we are trying to dispose of this stuff for something else people will wish we had thought it through. The only way we can go "green" from oil is to start building nuclear power plants along the ocean to make Hydrogen. That or get cold fusion working.
- l800LEMMINGS, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2yes but pick your battles, this is cleaner and at the rate gas prices increase we'd be thrown into a depression, and it would be worse for the environment if the country turned into detroit
- sk11, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Yes, tell me about the negative impacts of CIGS and other thin film solar technologies compared to coal, gas, oil and nuclear. Care to list the waste produced by nuclear plants, do you realise that no one even today has a permanent plan for what to do with it all? There's something like 50,000 metric tonnes of it produced by the US alone.
- remccain, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Get your facts straight.
Every 12-24 months, U.S. plants are shut down and the oldest fuel assemblies are removed and replaced. All of the country's nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. To put this in perspective, all the used fuel produced to date by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in more than 40 years of operation—some 40,000 metric tons—would cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about five yards, if the fuel assemblies were stacked side by side and laid end to end. - reddikilowatt, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Sure, photovoltaic solar is not all that clean, efficient, etc. But most homes would get a much bigger bang for the buck by installing solar water heaters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_collect ...
These are usually simple copper plates painted black. The evacuated glass pipe ones are a little more complex, but they are still mostly copper and glass. And they can be installed very inexpensively, so the payback is usually less than 10 years, even sooner if you can take advantage of the tax breaks.
There is no free lunch. Your solution(?) doesn't seem to make much sense, unless you believe the FUD from the existing energy players.
Oh, and 15 years from now, we can just melt down the panels, extract the metals and grind up the Si. We would do this to make more solar cells, perhaps? But why would we want to do that, since, unless they are damaged beyond use, they should still be producing electricity at about 75% of their design voltage. - kieranmaine, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Excellent point on solar water heaters. I have no idea why these aren't standard on all new homes.
Why spend masses on new tech like hydrogen when you can cut down oil use a lot with solar water heating?
@wolphcry - Read this report: http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:JJtZxpW3zm8J: ...
It's fairly long but it provides a compelling evidence on why solar will be a big part of the energy mix in the future as well as nuclear.
- blqysmg, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3In the first article you cited:
"According to the researchers, producing the same amount of electricity by fossil fuel generates at least 10 times as much greenhouse gasses. Checking different sources, this claim is confirmed: 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by fossil fuels indeed emits 10 times as much CO2 (around 450 grams of CO2 per kWh for gas and 850 for coal). Solar panels might be far from an ideal solution, but they are definitely a better choice compared to electricity generated by fossil fuels. At least if we follow the assumptions chosen by the researchers."- wolphcry, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1I never said that they weren't cleaner then fossil fuels, i just said open your eyes and look at the big problems with solar.
1. not clean to make
2. doesn't work at night
3. doesn't work on a cloudy day
4. very impractical. Look at all the solar magazines and you will not see large electic items like a electric range, electric water heater....
Solar will not be the answer until it's clean to make and up to high 80% - kirado4, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3since when doesn't it work on a cloudy day.. and who says that only solar panels will be used to generate power.. don't tell me the wind doesn't blow at night either.. nor do the waves or the heat of the earth function at night time..
if it produces less pollution than fossil fuels it is practical.. so what your saying is that we can't try any technology until it's 100% clean.. and just keep on making the environment even more polluted.. very clever - kieranmaine, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2You also completely dismiss the market provided by the third world - take a look at this site http://lightingafrica.org/. A lot of the winners of recent Development Marketplace competition provide solar solutions to replace kerosene lamps.
Nuclear can't provide for these people, but solar can. With huge market to tap in the third world solar has large potential revenue stream that nuclear can't tap. Obviously a big advantage for solar. You've asked people to open their eyes, but you haven't appeared to do any good research into the potential of solar. I've already left a good link in another comment. This
blog article is interesting http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+a ... - he has other interesting blog post regarding solar.
- wolphcry, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1I never said that they weren't cleaner then fossil fuels, i just said open your eyes and look at the big problems with solar.
- vault, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Oh please, solar isn't green enough?
Sure, let's ignore this dependence on foreign oil and not adopt solar because it's not, at this point in time, as 'green' as it could be. - kieranmaine, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2The links are good.
I know the article is about PV, but you haven't mentioned the alternative solar thermal power plants, which produce energy overnight and solar water heating. Solar water heating is superior to PV in cutting energy use.
You also haven;t mentioned much about non silicon alternatives - this one is interesting http://www.g24i.com/. - ShnowDoggie, on 06/29/2008, -0/+3From Dr. Vasilis Fthenakis in response to the cited article:
Kris De Decker exhibits great ignorance about PV technology and life cycle impacts with his comments. The study in ES&T that he cites, undertook year-long independent expert peer reviews before it was accepted for publication by this most prestigious journal. Just a couple of remarks to some of his points that deserve an answer. Degradation losses of 0.5% to 1% /yr are included in our studies; the low number is confirmed by utility (e.g., TEP, AZ) records and the utility posts on the web daily perfomance of their biggest plant Springerville). The numbers of gCO2/kWh that De Decker (is this a real name?) demonizes us for not showing!! are intermiadiate numbers in a LCA. The final numbers with which PV can be compared with nuclear and fossil are g CO2/kWh. The former can easily be backcalculated from the later.
His assumptions about 3 yr life expectancies are rediculous. PV flat modules have confirmed lifes of 30 yrs and their structures can well last 60 yrs, but consevatively, we used 30 yrs for both.
Dr. Vasilis Fthenakis
Brookhaven National Lab and Columbia University
- cerberes, on 06/28/2008, -11/+22***** idiots... just push the big red button and get it all over with.
- OfF3nSiV3, on 06/28/2008, -6/+67So, they halt alternative energy projects to study the enviornment impact..do they halt oil and other polutting projects too?!
Remember that factory in the Great Lakes where they were even given some more freedom to pollute the lake?!- Yookji, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3ANWR was halted. There was a moratorium on offshore drilling.
- gothrus, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2He's talking about the permit BP got to release more toxins into Lake Michigan from their refinery in NW Indiana last year. The state EPA (republican administration) granted the permit to allow more dumping. This reverses a 30+ year trend of reducing pollution in the lake. This is so BP can process the dirty tar sands oil from Canada and possibly Venezuela. After huge public outcry in the Chicago area, BP said they would not increase dumping but they refused to give up the permit. Now, U.S. Steel is trying to increase their dumping into the lake.
- nzhamstar, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Why the *****? Who would be dumb enough to dump into a ***** lake?
People are greedy greedy *****. Is this happening in other countries or just the US?
In New Zealand I beleive we hold all our lakes in pretty high regard, and don't dump anything in them for fear of harming the wildlife... environmentalism and stuff like that.
I thought that was the normal behaviour... America sounds really, really *****, right down to the corporate and civilian levels. Everyone just wants to make a buck. - ToRoE, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Dont't forget, BP dangled 83 new jobs in front of the press! ohhh wow, 83 more jobs! meh.
and so you know BP's permit is to limit them dumping no more than 1.3 onces of Mercury per YEAR. They have an EPA expemtion for until 2012 and current dump 3 pounds per year. Still bad, but pretty miniscule. There are tons of reason Tar sand oil was never worth going after, until the price of oil got ludicris.
- nzhamstar, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Why the *****? Who would be dumb enough to dump into a ***** lake?
- TheBigBentley, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Yeah they do as matter a fact. That's why we aren't energy dependent. Bacause every time we want to drill for oil, some environmental wacko cause a baby fit about saving the polar bears.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Why do you think they aren't drilling NOW you dumbass!
-_-
The irony is lost on the idiocracy of digg.
>.>
- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -7/+25This is why the Reps and Dems are the same. They preach the religion of green energy production then do everything to stop it. We can't have wind farms off the coast because birds might fly into them and it will disrupt the fish. We can't drill for oil off shore because of the environment, can't use nuclear because of waste. This country needs a solid third party, some one with real solutions.
- Egoist, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1It's the Republicans who want to drill off shore and build nuclear reactors. The Democrats are the ones who pander to the "environmentalists."
- marx2k, on 06/28/2008, -2/+7"This country needs a solid third party"
Dugg just for that statement alone. Right now America is like a small town served by Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart - Egoist, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Having more than two parties won't solve anything. Look at countries like Italy that have hundreds of tiny political parties. While there may be a huge choice to choose from, they form two large coalitions: the Left and the Right. Small parties coalesce together and hang onto larger like-minded parties so that they have power to push their agenda, and you end up in the same place.
Two parties are fine, just elect better people to represent them.- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1However, the larger parties have to concede some platform issues to the smaller party to obtain a majority and gain power. There is a give and take with their systems.
- pighead77, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Finally some sensible post. It's not the number of parties issue, it's the smart/dumb leaders issue. People, especially slashdotter/digger, tend to oversimlify things: 3 parties better than 2 parties, way better than 1 party, but fail to realize there aren't too many fundamental differences indeed.
- nmessick, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0We can elect better people once we 're given better choices. Barak and McCain are not better choices... infact they are horrible choices. Each is only going to make things worse.
- reaperhatch, on 06/29/2008, -0/+2the republicunt and democrap party people in power are the same. They are just there to divide the people. The rich and the poor. They also give the false illusion to the poor that there is a hope while they give away our resources. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/la ...
- hollyminkowski, on 06/28/2008, -4/+47Moronic!
All solar panels do is provide nice shady spots for all the little creatures.- ogremidget, on 06/28/2008, -6/+2But when the shady spots are 36 square miles, tree-huggers freak out.
- Yookji, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2If you'd read the article, you'd have noticed that it requires spraying herbicides over thousands of acres of land before laying down the solar panels.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4No it doesn't. The quote was making a (rather *****) comparison between setting up a big solar field and spraying tons of gallons of toxic chemicals on the ground. Nowhere does it say you need herbicides to set up solar fields. That makes no sense.
- acliffhang3r, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5How is that different from farming any large tract of land. Haven't studies been already made about "spraying herbicides over thousands of acres of land" over the long history of mechanized farming?.
- gquaglia, on 06/28/2008, -7/+19Because we all know its much better for the environment to burn coal and oil by the ton. What a bunch of buffoons!
- ufia, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2You want them to shut everything off until some genius come up with the perfect solution? You couldn't stand one single day without electric power. Stop whining.
Coal and oil is already in place. Newer energy projects are not. Let them do the ***** study before we ***** the environment up even more.- gquaglia, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5Hey ass-puppet, I'm not saying shut it down. I'm saying its ironic that they are delaying solar over environmental issues, when coal and oil , which solar could replace some day, are far worse. Stop sucking the ***** of big oil, thank you.
- kirado4, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5yeah let's wait until it's too late.. and not bother to try and create new energy projects.. what if you discover it has no effect on the environment but it's to late to reverse the effects of the oil pollution..?? Then all this time would've been wasted on stupid studies that have nothing to do with actually protecting the environment..
I mean *****.. put the solar panels on every roof space available.. oh no.. were killing all the animals that live on our roofs.. no wait we killed them already when we destroyed their habit to build our cities.. duh!
- ufia, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2You want them to shut everything off until some genius come up with the perfect solution? You couldn't stand one single day without electric power. Stop whining.
- unreg, on 06/28/2008, -2/+27FUD
The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land.
Public land. This doesn't stop the development of the technology. Nor does it stop the installation of facilities on land not under the control of the BLM.- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2You don't understand that if the Federal Gov doesn't set aside the land to do it, it won't get done. Why? There is the "Not In My Backyard" attitude in the US. Local communities would kill a solar power facility so quick it would be ridiculous. It would be too "ugly" for them.
The same problem happened where I lived. They killed a wind farm because it was "an eyesore". However when the natural gas people came in with big money for the land, they didn't much care about what an eyesore it would be.- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Just the same, people don't like coal plants or casinos in their backyards. What is your point? Are you operating on the assumption that because something catches heat from a "not in my backyard" crowd, that its a good thing?
- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2My point is the without the federal government pouring money and effort into the idea, there is less of a chance for it to take off. It happens this way because the people are too dense or set in their ways to want to attempt to change something because it might effect their lives. Unless the people are going to receive a big check from a company, this wont happen with renewable energy, they won't even try.
- blqysmg, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5while true, it is still a troubling development. There are plenty of Government facilities that could be powered by clean solar energy, especially in the huge number of National Parks, National forests, and BLM lands in the Southwest. Stopping the installation of Solar Energy to those areas is just stupid. If they put solar roofs on the buildings, they both help to cool the buildings and generate electricity to run the thing.
I understand they may want to study the affects of huge solar farms, but they could do so by building a couple first, then studying them, rather than banning them. Millions of acres of desert lands getting full sun most of the year, and we can't dedicate ANY for solar energy collection? Stupid and wrong.
I'm just sure that the Oil lobbies had nothing to do with this decision...- unreg, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1If you read the article, they are not putting a halt to ongoing projects, they have stopped accepting applications for new projects.
There is simply an overwhelming amount of work being done (which is a good sign), so much so that perhaps we need better regulation.
A for instance: What / who is responsible for returning the site to it's original state if the project fails, funding runs out or the equipment reaches the end of its useful life?
- unreg, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1If you read the article, they are not putting a halt to ongoing projects, they have stopped accepting applications for new projects.
- MrPig, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4This issue is more complicated than one may think. Solar panels aren't made from the most environmentally friendly material.
If 10 years down the rode we learned (though unlikely; but possible) that we should have never used solar panels as much you'd be yelling at the government for not conducting a study. I see nothing wrong with this as long as they don't prevent private companies from using them.
- chukd, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2You don't understand that if the Federal Gov doesn't set aside the land to do it, it won't get done. Why? There is the "Not In My Backyard" attitude in the US. Local communities would kill a solar power facility so quick it would be ridiculous. It would be too "ugly" for them.
- phorty40, on 06/28/2008, -3/+4the only difference is that one party will be blatantly against it while the other will make up excuses for why it cant be.
- khail250, on 06/28/2008, -8/+1OIL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- MattCalmus, on 06/28/2008, -4/+7Wow, you guys don't even read the preview paragraph anymore, much less TFA. They key word here is PUBLIC land.
This makes plenty of sense.- dha07030, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1This is Digg sir, please do not even try.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Yep, the BLM is only doing the same thing they would to for ANY development on PUBLIC land. They are enforcing the liberal extremist laws and regulations that were passed by all of the Democratic Congresses of the past EIGHTY YEARS!
>.>
- localzuk, on 06/28/2008, -5/+18You mean that in the 30 year existence of this technology, and the multitude of large scale projects that exist around the world, there have been no environmental studies done? I don't believe that for a second. Also, if these projects are being built in predominantly desert like areas (such as Nevada) how much real damage to wildlife can there actually be? There's sod all living in the middle of a desert!
I'm sure they didn't bother with environmental studies when they were setting off nukes there...- hiPpymIck, on 06/28/2008, -1/+9Dugg for the nukes point..lol
- philhatesyou, on 06/28/2008, -8/+1"You mean that in the 30 year existence of this technology, and the multitude of large scale projects that exist around the world, there have been no environmental studies done? I don't believe that for a second."
If you're so ***** sure, then go find one of these studies.
"Also, if these projects are being built in predominantly desert like areas (such as Nevada) how much real damage to wildlife can there actually be? There's sod all living in the middle of a desert!"
Thanks for underlining for everyone exactly how stupid you are. - pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1Sure, there have been plenty of studies done. But the liberal laws and regulations regarding commercial use of PUBLIC land require a new study for EVERY new development.
-_-
Liberal, fascist, socialist MORONS!
- fr3ddie, on 06/28/2008, -8/+88............................................______ __
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,.............. .............`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_........ ..._,-%.......`
...................................,- jeffsback2223, on 06/28/2008, -2/+9Digg can learn from your example. THIS is an appropriate time to use face palm.
- unclejessie, on 06/28/2008, -7/+2I always wondered when this was going to come up. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding other ways to power our lives (as long as living standards don't suffer). But what is going to happen with thousands and maybe evenually millions of acres of solar farms? Could you imagine Earth looking like a big freaking Christmas tree ornament from space?
Once a solar cell reaches upwards of 100% utilization of the suns energy (if it's even possible) would there be a way to actually shrink the size of the farms?- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3upwards of 100% of the suns energy? are you proposing solar cells that create extra free energy from nothing?
um...no. not possible. - LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -0/+3um, we only need like an area 35x35 miles to power the whole US. While it doesn't make sense to put all our eggs in one basket, even with today's solar power efficiency, we could more than put an end the use of oil forever by putting solar panels on the roofs of all of the buildings in America.
So you aren't talking millions of acres (not that we don't have that to spare) or even using any space (rooftops) that isn't already in use.
And I'd prefer some shiny black roofs to a dead polluted husk of a planet...
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3upwards of 100% of the suns energy? are you proposing solar cells that create extra free energy from nothing?
- biogears, on 06/28/2008, -17/+12Modern environmentalist are giving us these 2 options:
#1 Consume energy without using oil, gas, solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, or any other method that may impact any species in any way.
#2 Consume no energy, ie: caveman era, except without burning any wood or cultivating any land or pooping next to any old-growth tree.
Environmentalism, the new Tyranny.- jahurt, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12Do you really think that environmentalists are behind this?
- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -8/+1The people that the environmentalists told me I should vote for are the people behind this. so yes.
- nmessick, on 06/29/2008, -1/+0Oh totally.. is there any question?!
- biogears, on 06/28/2008, -9/+4Yes, to appease them, prevent lawsuits, etc.
I just wish environmentalists would be honest about their true desires. They dislike human progress, they dislike markets and private ownership of property, they believe there are too many humans.
A beaver can cut down 20 trees and build a dam and that's ok, but if a human puts up a solar panel, an environmentalist has to approve of its impact.- Insightful, on 06/28/2008, -1/+6Blogears is a blowhard idiot.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5Tyranny? Come on........ such a black and white world you live in. Have you ever stopped to consider why people object to some energy projects? We should always strive for better more efficient intelligent ways to do things. There are right ways and wrong ways to do things and many people (not just environmentalists) want to see things done right in the first place so they don't have negative impacts in the long run.
Oils- we use too much and it dirty.
Coal- obviously we need less of this.
Geothermal - no problem there we should use more.
Wind- No problem except to make the blades more bird friendly.
Solar- put it in the right places i.e. on top of buildings and homes where they should be.
Nuclear- Great source if you can recycle the waste product (this technology has been largely ignored for 30 years).- Peko, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1stonewall, while I think your heart is in the right place, you've made a few generalizations which are pretty shakey.
Wind + Solar; even if there is a huge increase in the amount, is not enough to meet typical western/industrialized energy needs. I'm pro wind/solar 100% but we need to make sure we understand that we consume way more than can foreseeably be provided by Wind/Solar. (i'm saying we cuz I'm western, not sure where you're from)
Nuke: The waste product is a little worrying. On one hand not a heck of a lot of waste product gets produced. On the other hand it's ridiculously toxic. And it will remain toxic for like a bajillion years. I wish I had a better handle on comparative information on the toxicity/environmental downsides of different energy sources. It also is not particularily effective at dealing with peak demand. Typical peak demand for energy is around 6pm, when people get home from work, cook dinner and do laundry and wash dishes. Nukes have to run fairly flat; it's not easy to turn up or down the juice.
Soberly I think society has to really assess the long term path forwards. At current projected consumption rates we really are screwed unless some very serious things happen. We (the world) have to use a _lot_ less energy and/or we have to find striking new efficiencies in existing energy tech and/or we need striking new ideas altogether (fusion comes to mind, perhaps extraterra solar)
And I want to emphasize BIG changes. Don't let somebody fool you into thinking that using canvas grocery bags and keeping your AC at 22 deg C versus 21 dec C is going to make enough difference.
We gotta go big. I'm thinking like "We. [insert country]. are going to set goals. We will reduce our domestic energy consumption by 50% in 40 years. We will kickstart green energy sources with huge amounts of money so that 75% of our domestic supply is green, also in 40 years, with a goal of 100% green in 60 years. We will start an international consortium to encourage and share energy policy and research with as many like minded states as possible. We will enforce international trading tariffs based on environmental impact giving competitive advantage to green foreign trade today so we can realize worldwide environmental advantage tommorow."
NB: I don't know that much about geothermal. I'm not sure how generally accessable it is. It's big in Iceland but I'm not sure how appropriate it is for different parts of the world. - sulthernao, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1The reason why recycling nuclear waste is not done in the US is because it can be used to create weapon grade nuclear material. It is really too bad the government has banned reusing nuclear waste, it would really minimize our "storage problem".
- Peko, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1stonewall, while I think your heart is in the right place, you've made a few generalizations which are pretty shakey.
- desertDenizen, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Filling your own house with ***** has always been problematic, even in cavemen's caves -- no new tyranny here. The difference now is that a burgeoning global population means we have to think of the planet as our house rather than an infinite expanse of space and resources.
- jahurt, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12Do you really think that environmentalists are behind this?
- borez, on 06/28/2008, -3/+21The thing is though... is there really enough sun to go around? If we build these solar panels all over the planet and use up all of the Sun, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
- borez, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6You didn't actually think I was being serious there did you?
...Oh dear. - reddikilowatt, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2You need to put the /sarcasm at the end. Some of us don't understand subtle humor...
- borez, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7For once, I thought I might just get away without it.
...guess not. - xenuxenuts, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2it wasn't exactly subtle.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 08/11/2008, -1/+1It wasn't well written either...
- borez, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7For once, I thought I might just get away without it.
- beauley, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1With Global Warming on many people's minds, do we have any ideas of the best way to lessen the impact on our future, or maybe a possible relief of its possible ravages or even a possible key to its eventual reversal. Many scientific experts have proposed
http://www.quazen.com/Science/Technology/Solar-Pow ...
Solar Power, Source of Endless Energy
- borez, on 06/28/2008, -0/+6You didn't actually think I was being serious there did you?
- fzoid, on 06/28/2008, -4/+45How many people thought this was a Onion headline?
- L0C0loco, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3There may be a bright side to this. Since production of solar cells has been ramping up to meet the needs of these utility-scale projects, this delay may cause the price of solar panels to drop in the near-term and allow you and I to buy them at a reasonable price.
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1No, because if "you and I" start buying them, that will counteract the price drop from increased supply.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1What we need are economies of scale to drive pries down.
- vibraharmonics, on 06/28/2008, -4/+4What ever happened to the impeachment read by Dennis Kucinich a few weeks ago? It barely gets any press. We need leaders with with heart, brains and soul to guide this country with compassion, wisdom and soul.
- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1and we need to impeach those leaders whenever they are elected
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2Anytime you advocate electing someone who governs with heart and soul, you should lose your right to vote. People like you get ex-wannabe-painters elected as chancellor.
- fxu1989, on 06/28/2008, -6/+3I bet this is a push by the top dawgs, oil companies must've bribed them to put a stop to this.
- jferrari, on 06/28/2008, -5/+8Why not just build them in the middle of a desert, where there are very few plants and animals? Oh, and where the sun is most powerful?
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Here's one reason.
http://www.werc.usgs.gov/news/1999-10-22.html - dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Better do some research, whiz kid. The desert has plenty of plants and animals.
Afterall, thats why we've stonewalled drilling in ANWR, because of all the delicate desert wildlife.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Here's one reason.
- iSkylla, on 06/28/2008, -6/+10Did any of you actually read the article?
""(The solar plants) cover thousands of acres potentially, and we need to determine what the environmental consequences are of that, look at what it means when you spray the land with herbicides or remove vegetation." She said the BLM's solar programme was "completely new" and required a framework to be established."
This makes complete sense and when you alter thousands of acres of wildlife, you better damn well know what you're doing and the effect it will have on the surrounding ecosystem.- DeadFox1, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5so.. like the thousands of acres of PARKING lots don't count?
- saltydawkins, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Oh they totally count. But the vast majority of them are also on PRIVATE land.
- reddikilowatt, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2They're talking about building some of these plants on BLM managed land, and they tend to err on the conservative side when it comes to doing anything. They're bureaucrats, after all. The first rule of life in a bureaucracy is to never say "yes" to anything, lest you be blamed when it all goes horribly wrong.
- DannoSpeaks, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Actually, millions upon millions of dollars are spent every year to STUDY the effect of impermeable surfaces, i.e. parking lots on both public and private land. Even if they are right in the middle of a city, it still must be studied and approved by city engineers.
- hubris2030, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2So put the solar farms in the parking lots... and on the rooftops. This way the energy supply is distributed evenly across the area using it... less distance to market, less energy lost in transport, no environmental damage that isn't already done.
- localzuk, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3There isn't a lot of wildlife in the areas where these utility scale farms are proposed. Places such as the nevada desert. Ok, yes there may be a few creatures that live out there, and a few species of cactus but the environmental impact will always be a lot less than that of our reliance on oil, nuclear, gas and coal.
- smotpoker1, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Yea with that in mind lets open up some more oil wells.They don't pollute at all.
- lowtolerance, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0*Read the article
from the article- "258 million acres of federal land, much of it flat, sun-baked terrain in the western US considered ideal for solar energy development"
- DeadFox1, on 06/28/2008, -2/+5so.. like the thousands of acres of PARKING lots don't count?
- grahamj1978, on 06/28/2008, -3/+10I would think our other methods of energy generation are far more damaging. Take the various ways used to extract coal. I seriously doubt a solar farm is going to have the same impact as a several kilometer wide surface coal mining operation.
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1So, let me get this straight. The attitude was once "stop drilling oil, its killing the wildlife, switch to something completely safe, such as solar power", and now when we merely try to do a study on the effects of solar farms, the cry is "oh, solar kills too, it just kills less than fossil fuels, thats why we should use it".
Please. Give me a break.
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1So, let me get this straight. The attitude was once "stop drilling oil, its killing the wildlife, switch to something completely safe, such as solar power", and now when we merely try to do a study on the effects of solar farms, the cry is "oh, solar kills too, it just kills less than fossil fuels, thats why we should use it".
- ahhell, on 06/28/2008, -5/+11Those oil lobbyists are sneaky bastards.
- Peko, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3They have easy access to grease.
- nj10ii, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3Typical! Tightening the handcuffs binding us to fossil fuels!! We can't afford to wait two years!
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1You ***** liberals put these handcuffs on us all decades ago! Doesn't feel so good when you realize the actual consequences of all your environmental laws and regulations, does it?
>.>
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1You ***** liberals put these handcuffs on us all decades ago! Doesn't feel so good when you realize the actual consequences of all your environmental laws and regulations, does it?
- TheMachine1, on 06/28/2008, -2/+10The ideal place to put solar panels is on roof tops anyway.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Agreed! I'm not defending the govt for their decision (they've had a pretty bad environmental track record so far) but this just might end up being a wise decision even if their decision was motivated by reasons other than environmental concern. The fact is there is a huge amount of wasted space atop buildings that could and should be tapped without the need to harm the environment. As barren as the desert may seem it does have a rich and unique ecosystem that is likely to be harmed if large areas are covered by solar panels. A combination of green roofs and solar power in the wasted space of rooftops would do alot to ween ourselves off carbon based energy and save a ton of money in the long run. The fact that mainstream companies like walmart, Intel, microsoft etc are installing large amounts of solar capacity on their own buildings is very reassuring and in my opinion there should be greater tax based incentives for any company (and homeowner) to install solar and/or wind so that this can really get going. This tax issue and what the govt is doing wrong is a whole other issue but essentially the emphasis should be placed on getting solar to every rooftop in the US.
- TheMachine1, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1An industrial solar plant might cost 1/2 that of a household installation but a household might pay twice the industrial rate for electric power anyway. Which means most people have no real incentive to support a commercial solar plant.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1That's a good point. However, with the rapid rise in utility bills which are going up dramatically that dynamic might change. Keep in mind that you are locking in your energy bill at the current price of the solar installation so if the cost of energy keeps rising you really start to see the gains. So while the initial cost may seem high it does pay off in the long term. The price of solar comes down every year so I'm optimistic for the future.
- philhatesyou, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Yeah, that'll work really well in the middle of a blizzard in New York City.
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1That's why we also have wind and other sources of energy! Look at some of the new construction going on in Dubai. Those new buildings use solar and wind to meet much of their energy needs. If that can be done there surely it could be done here. In reality we would never have a total reliance on only one energy source anyway. It's all about having a diversified energy portfolio and reducing (not eliminating yet) our need to use coal and oil. For those times of the day or year when solar does not work well we will have wind. When the wind is not enough we can use other technology (nuclear, oil, coal). If we can reduce yearly consumption by 20-30% in the beginning that would go a long way. As fuel cells mature and energy storage increases that could make things even better. There are lots of creative things that could be done. NYC for instance has a really nice pilot project in the east river where they are developing energy from underwater turbines. The only major problems they've had is that there is TOO much current. Not a bad situation to be in considering that this is just an engineering blip that can be solved.
http://gothamist.com/2007/08/13/east_river_turb.ph ...
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1That's why we also have wind and other sources of energy! Look at some of the new construction going on in Dubai. Those new buildings use solar and wind to meet much of their energy needs. If that can be done there surely it could be done here. In reality we would never have a total reliance on only one energy source anyway. It's all about having a diversified energy portfolio and reducing (not eliminating yet) our need to use coal and oil. For those times of the day or year when solar does not work well we will have wind. When the wind is not enough we can use other technology (nuclear, oil, coal). If we can reduce yearly consumption by 20-30% in the beginning that would go a long way. As fuel cells mature and energy storage increases that could make things even better. There are lots of creative things that could be done. NYC for instance has a really nice pilot project in the east river where they are developing energy from underwater turbines. The only major problems they've had is that there is TOO much current. Not a bad situation to be in considering that this is just an engineering blip that can be solved.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2But that's where we're supposed to put roof top gardens! Which is it? You friggin, granola chomping, fascist hippies!
>.>
Make up your damn minds! Either we need to require studies for EVERY damn development on PUBLIC land or we require studies for NONE of them! You don't get to have it ONLY apply to SOME businesses and not others!
- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Agreed! I'm not defending the govt for their decision (they've had a pretty bad environmental track record so far) but this just might end up being a wise decision even if their decision was motivated by reasons other than environmental concern. The fact is there is a huge amount of wasted space atop buildings that could and should be tapped without the need to harm the environment. As barren as the desert may seem it does have a rich and unique ecosystem that is likely to be harmed if large areas are covered by solar panels. A combination of green roofs and solar power in the wasted space of rooftops would do alot to ween ourselves off carbon based energy and save a ton of money in the long run. The fact that mainstream companies like walmart, Intel, microsoft etc are installing large amounts of solar capacity on their own buildings is very reassuring and in my opinion there should be greater tax based incentives for any company (and homeowner) to install solar and/or wind so that this can really get going. This tax issue and what the govt is doing wrong is a whole other issue but essentially the emphasis should be placed on getting solar to every rooftop in the US.
- peronda, on 06/28/2008, -6/+4This make much sense since the price of oil is soooooooo cheap these days ...
/sarcasm - DeadFox1, on 06/28/2008, -6/+7this ***** INFURIATES me.
- bonez56, on 06/28/2008, -10/+5penis
- MortalynFlux, on 06/28/2008, -8/+18Everyone's blaming the Democrat's here. But the Bureau of Land Management was hand-picked by failed oilsman George Dubya Bush to allow his oil buddies to drill on public lands, and we're not just talking about deserts here.
This is obviously a ploy to kill green energy, while making everyone mad at environmentalists. It's a two for one, and Bush and Chaney are laughing about this over a scotch.- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -6/+1can you name any of these "oil buddies"? names, not 'exxon' or anything stupid like that please.
- zeusthemoose, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4HAHAHAHA! Ignorance at its finest. You, sir, are a very ignorant individual. But individuals like yourself will never have a grasp of reality anyways. But since you asked for it, here ya go (this was written in 2001, but still very valid today):
"The president, vice-president, commerce secretary and national security adviser all have strong ties to the oil industry.
Vice-President Dick Cheney amassed some £50m-$60m while he was chief executive of Haliburton oil company.
Commerce Secretary Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed. "
"National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice was a director of Chevron. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1138009. ...
- zeusthemoose, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4HAHAHAHA! Ignorance at its finest. You, sir, are a very ignorant individual. But individuals like yourself will never have a grasp of reality anyways. But since you asked for it, here ya go (this was written in 2001, but still very valid today):
- DannoSpeaks, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Actually, the director of BLM has an impressive resume in conservation and forestry. He has never worked for the oil industry and has dedicated his life to maintaining a balance of development and conservation. He was unanimously approved by the democratic controlled senate in 2007. I assume you are just an idiot and really don't need to be bothered by facts in forming your opinions.
- pitlord, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1The BLM is only enforcing the liberal laws and regulations that have been passed by EVERY Democratic Congress of the last EIGHTY YEARS!
>.>
- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -6/+1can you name any of these "oil buddies"? names, not 'exxon' or anything stupid like that please.
- hiPpymIck, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3public land..
soo... sounds to me like an win/win opportunity for Native Americans (..with reservations in sunny places)
payback US govt *and* environmentally friendly - WhoDoneIt, on 06/28/2008, -4/+7Fine, then make it mandatory for ALL buildings 10 stories or higher to have solar panels installed on the rooftop. Have each and every one of them tie into a power grid so everyone can benefit.
1. You are not going to do any more "green" damage. The structure is already there.
2. Everyone ***** benefits.- stonewall123, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Very good point! For this to happen ,however, congress needs to grow some balls and make an energy bill changes that can at least extend tax credits for renewables (solar and wind) that they have been unable to get through so far. This stupidity between Bush and Congress need to stop so that real energy legislation gets enacted.
- dafunkmonster, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5So, you would require every company building a skyscraper to purchase expensive solar panels to cover the rooftop, and then require them to share the power from that with the city?
***** that. If we're going to require solar panels on buildings, then we shouldn't be forcing them to give away the benefits for free. This isn't the U.S.S.A...yet. - philhatesyou, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Right, because purifying Si isn't at all energy intensive and has no associated waste products.
- gavin422, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2The problem with that is that the taller a building gets, the lower its ratio of roof surface area to volume gets.
A 10-story building covered with solar panels could probably power itself, but a 120-story skyscraper with the same roof surface area will produce the same amount of power for 12 times the demand. - Mistrspark, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Are we forgetting that the skyscrapers also have substantial vertical surfaces that would lend themselves naturally and unobtrusively to the placement of solar pane windows? The output is not quite as high per square foot as the traditional roof or ground mounted panels, but it's not far behind. And, it provides a very attractive window shading coefficient that both transmits light into the space and contributes positively to the various State energy codes that oppose the transmission of heat energy through infrared conversion into the space that also requires mechanical cooling. All in all, it would make a lot of sense to be able to use the vertical surfaces as well as the small roof footprint during the portions of the day when the sun is highest, which also coincides nicely with the highest electrical demand. Let's see, now, unobtrusive, passive in operation, solar shading inherent, net benefit to the issue of becoming less fossil fuel dependent --- why isn't this already a staid requirement for buildings?
- mynameisrobert, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8It's true, the suns rays will kill you!
Everybody in history has been exposed to these dangerous photons, and most have died. - dougbert, on 06/28/2008, -2/+10WTF? Uhm, isn't Germany covered in solar panels now? Why can't we just look at their results and continue? Oh yes, the "wrong" people are still making the profits and we need to "fix" that first!!! Du-oh!
- TheMachine1, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/solar/images/ge ...
The US unlike Germany has some largely human untouched land. So even a large solar plant in Germany would be replacing say farmland not a natural ecosystem.
- TheMachine1, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/features/solar/images/ge ...
- greenjoy, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1Sometimes it is soooo embarassing to be an American. Jeepers, and we who elect morons to appoint more morons - yeah, I agree, the irony of it all.............no diggs - none (I've gotta figure that out)...
- skeptic666, on 06/28/2008, -7/+4I smell big oil...
- ProUSADigger, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0Close. Actually, it is the smell of greasy hippie hair.
- Dasein, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4anybody actually read this site? the same story already has over 1000 diggs and is in the top 10: http://digg.com/environment/US_Calls_for_Moratoriu ...
- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -3/+12this has nothing to do with politics or the environment. This is typical big government BS, making work for themsleves and their fat useless staff to justify their budget and their worthless jobs. "Oh, you want to put solar panels in? well, we're going to need 2 years worth of PUBLIC MONEY so we can hire more useless staff and sit on our ass for the next 2 years COLLECTING PUBLIC MONEY for ourselves, then you can have your solar panels."
It's really that simple.
The only answer to this nonsense is to vote for whoever promises to cut taxes. The dems and reps are 2 sides of the same fat coin. I'm voting Libertarian.- iSkylla, on 06/28/2008, -2/+9Congrats, want a cookie?
You're an idiot.- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1my taxes are paying for this BS so you're right, I am an idiot.
- iSkylla, on 06/28/2008, -2/+9Congrats, want a cookie?
- commentbot, on 06/28/2008, -3/+6Yeah! Go coal and oil pollution!
- tehxen3, on 06/28/2008, -7/+9Solar energy is for sissy europeans, real men use oil.
- goon5000, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7well lets face it, no one is getting laid driving a solar car. and if you did, the girl probably does'nt shave her legs
- TheMachine1, on 06/28/2008, -1/+5Real men with nuclear energy, blow real men with oil, asses out of the water.
- marx2k, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Thats the most homosexually charged sentence ever
- reaperhatch, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1I read it as, "nuclear energy is better then oil." I guess it depends on the individual and what they have on their mind.
- funkywood, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1That's not what the commas say.
- PBurnsOneDown, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8a 'real man' is a social construct. go ask an aboriginal bush man what a real man is. im sure he is more of a man than youll ever be
- IamJustinM, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1and ride horses right?
- djm19, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Real men drill and refine their own oil with their own bare hands!
- rlh1, on 06/28/2008, -8/+6Ah, I may be mistaken, but..... BIG OIL is not involved with generating electricity in the south west where these solar plants will be built.
Find a new villain- kirado4, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4and that is relevant why?
- rlh1, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Why would big oil try to block thermal solar plants in the southwest when they don't use oil in the south west to make electricity?
They use coal - hydro - natural gas to make it there. Why try to block something that doesn't affect them? - Jexie, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Here's the kicker - IT DOES AFFECT THEM. Big oil doesn't like new players in the energy business, this capitalist ideal only applies to us peons.
- rlh1, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1Jexie,
How does it affect them? They don't use oil to product electricity in the south west. They don't control all energy. Their only monopoly is in transportation. With China and India coming on line with millions of cars they have more then enough willing customers to pay their high prices. Please show me any major oil company that is heavy into producing electricity.
- rlh1, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Why would big oil try to block thermal solar plants in the southwest when they don't use oil in the south west to make electricity?
- Jexie, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2It doesn't matter where big oil generates their electricity - what matters to them is they sell it to everyone. Solar power, done anywhere takes money away from them.
- kirado4, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4and that is relevant why?
- kdor, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3I love it when greens fight greens. Its like a chick fight. Just funny to watch, but not try to stop.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
