New Solar Power Projects on U.S. Public Lands Placed on Hold

Amazing. The wonders of bureaucracy never ceases to amaze me. With solar projects already being successful in other countries, why put additional delay on development in the US? This is not an untested product.

Anyone who wants to understand the Bush policy record on the environment need only look at this decision.

"The policy reassessment is expected to take two years to complete and applies to both solar photovoltaic and solar thermal projects."

This means that there will be ZERO new solar photovoltaic and solar thermal projects for the duration of the Bush presidency.

Americans will pay big for this.

This really, for the sake of the environment is good news. The production of photovoltaics is a dirty and polluting industry.At the same time, the installation of solar panels completely decimates the local ecosystem.

Hopefully this will result in a shift to the more practical logical and cheap green alternative: nuclear.

good story

If they have a plan, I think they should stick with it and do it. The administration doesn't seem to care much for the environment.... :(

Martin Smith:

Right on! Next we should seriously explore clean coal. And I'm sure we can filter oil burning plants too :)

No, but seriously, what's Bush's problem? HALT alternative energy until we can "do it faster" for TWO YEARS? What a retard.

it is time to gather in front of the white house in great numbers and protest the policies and the crimes of this administration until Bush is impeached & locked away in prison. i am a disabled veteran, us army. p.s. i have never killed anyone, war is stupid. i was poor. that's my reason.

Why do you want to build on federal land in the first place? Stop sucking at the teet and buy some property to put your panels on.

If you can't make it without subsidies then get out of the way for the efficient businesses that can.

I'm reading a lot of negative posts about this, and a lot of them seem to be ignorant of the actual content of the decision. This bill only applies to new facilities on public land, not private, which means that while big PV or solar thermal plants won't be built on government owned land in that time, as long as the person owns the land privately (and has all of the necessary permits, etc), they can still by all means build. In addition, I think it's important that the government take a step back and look at the greater impacts that these plants will have on wherever they're built. I'm well aware that they don't need fuel like a coal plant, nor any real kind of pollution, but they also tend to have a much larger geographical footprint, and desert landscapes where these kind of facilities are prone to be built are delicate ecosystems as is. So, while I don't necessarily approve of the complete halt of everything for two whole years, take heart that they're doing this because they've been so overwhelmed by applications to build that they've had to put them on pause while they take a look at the situation.

Just in time, guns are legal in D.C. and Bush does this. Good time to 'clean' that handgun.

@ Daniel: I'm looking into what percentage of exisiting and planned solar projects are on public v. private land (not something I have at my fingertips at the moment...), so hopefully when I get all the stats on that we can have a greater idea of how much development is actually curtailed by this political development.

I also agree with the sentiment that given the size of many of these desert plans, the effect on the ecosystem can be great and should be carefully considered before any plan gets approved.

Nonetheless, this doesn't look good for the Bush administration, even if the man himself had nothing to do with formulating this decision.

I highly doubt these companies won't survive without federal funds and the only two people angry at solar powered federal lands that I can think of are:

-Private contractors (especially those who didn't win the bid)
-Oil backed politicians

(maybe snakes too)

I haven't seen any studies on environmental impact, but I can't see what the issue would be. You take up a couple acres with mirrors, right? The end? There's a massive amount of city expansion and destruction of rainforests and natural habitats done every day in the name of progress and suddenly when it comes to a few acres of desert everyone gets up in arms about a solar plant?

This is another example of our current leadership talking the talk, but not walking the walk. The failure of congress to extend the ITC credit is going to have a huge impact in the renewable energy sector next year. As much as I would like to see our country mobilize around the renewable energy industries, it's going to take real support from our government.

"Hopefully this will result in a shift to the more practical logical and cheap green alternative: nuclear."

No need to be so brunt about it. I too, support nuclear, but this doesn't mean we should not use available renewables. In the desert there are few to no rivers and large water bodies, which makes the cooling of nuclear plants much more difficult. And ecological devastation in a desert is much less severe than, say, in a more lush environment.
As for cost, the cost of nuclear, while much lower than solar PV, isn't that much lower than the best solar thermal available until you start thinking about energy storage.

We need a mix of energy options- solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, and tidal. Whatever is cheapest given the local environment should be used, as long as it is clean and reliable. We need to federal government to make policy that gives incentives for investing in green power of all sorts. A carbon tax would work. So would reduced-interest loans: right now renewables and nuclear both pay much higher interest on loans than fossil fuel plants, which discourages potential investors from pursuing these otherwise profitable ventures.
Actually, I'd use the carbon tax to pay for research and development of alternative energy sources and energy storage media. Than you'll see how quickly our power and car companies, and farmers, start doing that kind of R&D.

Nuclear has its environmental downsides too, just do a quick google search for how much water Nuclear Plants use and you'll understand why they don't build many of them out west here. While I appreciate the concept that they are trying to make sure the environmental impact of ANY energy project has on public lands, the BLM blows my mind that they're going to drag their feet on this for 2 years, while approving oil and gas development here in colorado. For whatever environmental impact Solar production has, it pales in comparison to the damage oil and gas exploration do to an ecosystem.

A parallel path could, alternatively, have been pursued which was a win win for the industry and public interests.

Specifically, the BLM could have allowed a limited number of new facilities to be planned and be put up on public land over next two years, requiring that the installer/owner(s) pay a share of the environmental impact study costs during planning, installation,and startup phases; and use the results to document prospective impacts which can be used as a basis for regulating those which come after a future date on other sites. In return give those collaborators a "pass" on mitigation costs if any are subsequently required.

Otherwise the impacts estimates on all sites will be speculative.

Wiser minds could certainly have prevailed in this manner if they were allowed to have a say.

Obviously, this looks like either coal utility profits are being threatened and/or it is just sheer incompetence. Take your pick.

While I am all for renewable energy and think that the current administration needs to get its head out of the sand, we do need to think about the ecological impacts of large solar arrays. Are they any better than mountaintop mining?

They definitely have the renewable source and no carbon footprint between manufacture, installation and disposal. But so far, most installations completely strip, level and grade the many acres of land being used, rendering the area more or less paved. This totally destroys soils (a major CO2 sink) local hydrology, habitat, habitat connectivity, etc. They can be installed with less impact quite easily - to date very few companies are addressing these issues. And the proposal to put large arrays in public lands that we have decided to protect needs to be done in an appropriate manner.

To the author of this article, Matthew McDermott, you've got this article COMPLETELY WRONG

The US Administrations head is not in the sand on this (or any other environmental) issue.... they've got their heads up their *ss.

The Bush Administration is pro-business, especially big oil and gas business.... Bush Sr. and Shrub have been in bed with the Saudis since the 1970's... where lots of their wealth came from and continues to come from....

Everyone in this country should be greatful for the two term limit for the presidential election... because I am sure there are many morons who would vote for him again, despite complaining about $4/ gal gasoline

Let's hope his term ends soon before he drags us into some other drastic measure that will make the Great Depression look like a cake walk....

He is such a contradictory man.... his speechs are full of rhetoric... .AMERICA IS ADDICTED TO OIL and WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT..... what does Bush do.....he tells us that we need to drill in ANWAR and more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico............. now how does that end our "addiction" to oil????????

This is what happens when your daddy buys your diploma from your local ivy league university

@ Roger:

I don't disagree with your assessment of the situation or the history of the Bush family. I just have to be a bit more diplomatic in how I present things.

Cheers,
M

"Nuclear has its environmental downsides too, just do a quick google search for how much water Nuclear Plants use and you'll understand why they don't build many of them out west here."

You're aware that solar thermal plants are _thermal_ plants?

Water just so happens to be a very good cooling solution, but if some day solar thermal plants get a cost effective water-free cooling solution it will be equally applicable to nuclear power.

Unlike nuclear, which can be situated along the coast and other practical areas where water isn't a problem, solar thermal plants are situated in the desert where their water use most definetly poses a problem.

There is still a short time to make your voice heard on the scope of the PEIS. The comment period runs through July 15, 2008 and there is a Public Comment Form available here. Written comments or suggestions on the scope of the PEIS can be mailed to: Solar Energy PEIS Scoping, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Ave. – EVS/900, Argonne IL 60439. As well, there are a few Public Scoping Meetings that will be held in Tucson, AZ; San Luis Obispo, CA; and El Centro, CA on July 8, 9 and 10, 2008.

There is still a short time to make your voice heard on the scope of the PEIS. The comment period runs through July 15, 2008 and there is a Public Comment Form available at http://solareis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm. Written comments or suggestions on the scope of the PEIS can be mailed to: Solar Energy PEIS Scoping, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 S. Cass Ave. – EVS/900, Argonne IL 60439. As well, there are a few Public Scoping Meetings that will be held in Tucson, AZ; San Luis Obispo, CA; and El Centro, CA on July 8, 9 and 10, 2008.

there's no such thing as global warming.

This is easily interpreted to be a way to drag feet on new solar projects. Given the administration's track record, it is not unreasonable to reach that conclusion.

While there may seem to be some truth to the sentiment that solar projects of this type are 'sucking at the public teat', it must be remembered that mining is a very destructive resource extraction that is also done on public land.

Those self-sufficient businesses aren't exactly standing on their own two feet, independent of public input. For that matter, in order to secure raw materials, some countries might even resort to warfare to establish a sufficiently compliant regime in a previously-hostile nation that has oil reserves within its border. Hard to imagine . . . .

Google HR6251 and consider that Big Oil can sit on 68M... no let me spell it out 68,000,000 acres (or 106,250 sq miles or 2% of the US land mass) of land indefinitely. If you roll that all up in one spot it would be the 8th largest state. It would be the 81st largest nation. Now I hear that oil companies are arguing that there just isn't oil under every acre of land. No Sh--, then don't renew the lease. That's like leasing a car that you never drive. Scratch that - that's like leasing a fleet of semis that you don't drive.

I don't think that the we should lease the 1.5M acres of ANWR's 1002 area for drilling but not for the same reason as most of you on this post. My reasons are that it will likley go the way of the other 68M acres of land. And if they do drill it goes to the world market not the US Market. This will make the price of a gallon of gas go down a few pennies several years from now. The Bush Administrations own Energy Department's EIA Report #: SR-OIAF/2008-03 reports a reduction in oil prices by "$1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case."

We could do much better to just let the Renewable Industry to stay on the US Market and allow testing on those 68M unused acres.

Google HR6251 and consider that Big Oil can sit on 68M... no let me spell it out 68,000,000 acres (or 106,250 sq miles or 2% of the US land mass) of land indefinitely. If you roll that all up in one spot it would be the 8th largest state. It would be the 81st largest nation. Now I hear that oil companies are arguing that there just isn't oil under every acre of land. No Sh--, then don't renew the lease. That's like leasing a car that you never drive. Scratch that - that's like leasing a fleet of semis that you don't drive.

I don't think that the we should lease the 1.5M acres of ANWR's 1002 area for drilling but not for the same reason as most of you on this post. My reasons are that it will likley go the way of the other 68M acres of land. And if they do drill it goes to the world market not the US Market. This will make the price of a gallon of gas go down a few pennies several years from now. The Bush Administrations own Energy Department's EIA Report #: SR-OIAF/2008-03 reports a reduction in oil prices by "$1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case."

We could do much better to just let the Renewable Industry to stay on the US Market and allow testing on those 68M unused acres.

This White House controlled government organization also manages all the oil leasing for the US, both on-shore and off-shore. And Off-Shore Oil leasing is on the fast track in Congress. Do you smell the Stink of corruption here? Stop Solar and support Oil at all costs.

@Bobby,

Right, and glaciers are dissapearing at and unprecidented rate and Christopher Columbus' goal of a east route to China just may arrive to the north pole this winter for the first time in the history of the planet.

Additionally, Global Warming is a label for the mindless to say "see it is colder over here, it isn't warming everywhere". You should be saying, "Climate Change does not exist." Either way you are wrong.

Gee this administration is all OIL guys, you think they have a vested interest maybe?

Unless I am mistaken there has been a solar thermal plant in California for the last 20+ years. Isn't that a long enough impact study?

We have oil company executives writing our US energy policy IN SECRET, with no green lobbyists present. What is this secret plan; raise energy prices for more profit at end of Bush reign?

We have oil companies in charge of or influenceing or owning utillity companies who burn this same oil based energy produced by oil companies. How is that NOT a monopoly?

These same utility companies quit paying green energy producing companies in California for six months back during the Enron scandal, trying to drive them out of business entirely, so that oil companies could monopolize the energy market even further.

Now they are asking for more control of all land, water and air to make even more money off us poor addicts... and many addicts will murder their mother for a fix. Looks like it is going to happen here too... Murder Mother Earth for just ONE more fix.

At the same time, renewables are dangerous, worthless or plain silly in the eyes of mass media, also controlled by huge corporations who are in cahoots with Republicans and oil companies. In their view, there is no problem, no global warming, no limit on profits or prices.. it is all good.