<p>The US government has known for at least ten years that we would likely face an energy crunch in the coming decade. As such, shouldn’t it have anticipated the need for solar energy environmental impact studies before now? </p>
<p>The reason for the “moratorium on new solar projects on public land” is “until it studies their environmental impact, which is expected to take about two years”. If you are appalled, it should be because of the treehuggers who have forced every action to be studied and studied and studied until there is no possibility of an environmental impact. </p>
<p>The article overstates the consequences. It would only affect thermal solar on public land, not on private land and not other forms of solar.</p>
<p>Let’s face the truth about hardcore enviromentalists. Their goal is not good growth and development–it is NO growth or development, no new power, and a return to some time that never existed.</p>
<p>Why should solar plants be public property. I’m with Razor on this one. There are plenty of state, private, Native American Lands, that could be leased or sold for solar use. </p>
<p>Solar technology is also changing rapidly. The proverbial question, Do we build now with current or near term technology or with future technology?</p>
<p>“The industry is already concerned over the fate of federal solar investment tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress renews them. The moratorium, combined with an end to tax credits, would deal a double blow to an industry that, solar advocates say, has experienced significant growth without major environmental problems.”</p>
<p>We are already far behind some other countries like Japan and Germany in alternative energy development and use. Why doesn’t the Bureau just fast-track the review process? Can Congress figure out a way to demand that they do?</p>
<p>Solar industry leaders say investors have been delaying or abandoning new projects over the past several months because of uncertainty over federal leases and solar investment tax credits. Currently, 80 million acres of federal lands are leased to the oil and gas industry, but not a single acre is leased to the solar industry.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the US government should be doing everything in its power to encourage and support alternative energy investment. That’s why this moratorium–along with the solar investment tax credits that haven’t yet been renewed–makes me wonder if the US government wants to slow down solar energy development for some reason?</p>
<p>Most modern countries in Europe and Asia are heavy users of nuclear and have had no major problems. Technology has come a long way. People die from coal fired plants too and the sun can give you cancer. Nuclear is ready and the best way to fo now.</p>
<p>Everyone knows about Chernobyl and it was many years ago in a very old style plant. We kept flying after some planes crashed and you keep developing and using nuclear as most modern countries have with no problems. If it were up to Kluge’s way of thinking we’d still be walking cross country. Lots of those early planes wrecked you know. And the autos were slow and unreliable. Things improve. A lot. Get your head out of the sand. The total deaths were fewer than we see on US roads in a month.</p>
<p>I don’t see any way around the nuclear option. Unfortunately, all is not well on the nuclear front. Analysts say the increasingly high cost of raw materials and labor could put a damper on nuclear investment by utilities:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’d better figure something out soon, though. The IEA warned yesterday that the oil market will remain tight for the next five years; that demand will remain strong; that fields in the North Sea and Mexico are declining rapidly; that non-OPEC growth will slow over the next 5 years; that Saudi Arabia is experiencing bigger problems than it will admit to; and that governments should not blame speculators:</p>
<p>There is no source that will produce large scale power like nuclear. Windfarms, Pffft. Solar–drop in the bucket. Yucca was a fine plan. Until the fearmongers got hold of it. I have been to Hanford several times. Most of that mess is from weapons production in the 50’s and 60’s.<br>
Other countries have figured it out.</p>
<p>Barrons - you have proven over and over again that you have no clue what I think about anything - any more than you have the slightest clue what “liberals” or “environmentalists” or anyone else you want to spit at think about anything. Your oft-exercised penchant for accusing others of believing things they have never stated is a very childish and dishonest form of straw man argument.</p>
<p>In fact, what I do think is that nuclear energy deserves careful consideration - neither knee-jerk support or opposition. As a person who actually does understand why environmental impact studies are performed (since I deal with them in my work) I have no problem with studying the long-term consequences of any proposed large-scale activity - whether it is a nuclear power plant or large scale solar - particularly plant-scale thermal solar installations. Environmental impact studies are simply due diligence directed at the consequences of our actions - something that hasn’t been a strong point of the free lunch, whiny baby boomer generation.</p>
<p>We’ve got Superfund sites across the nation because we gave no thought to the environmental consequences of our mining and industrial activities - now we’re paying the price. Our kids will continue to pay the price for our mistakes for decades if not centuries. The biggest single issue with regard to nuclear is the storage/disposal of the waste products which will remain unbelievably toxic for thousands of years. Is that simply going to be another screw job we hand off to our grandchildren? On the other hand: global warming (which Barrons doesn’t believe in) is a by-product of fossil fuel burning, and is also bad. So some serious decisions need to be made, and priorities established.</p>
<p>Actually giving careful study and consideration to the various positive and negative consequences of all of the alternatives isn’t as fun as name-calling directed at anyone who disagrees with us, but it’s really what is needed.</p>
<p>The environmental movement has proven time and time again that their game is to keep moving the goalposts to stop any development they don’t like which basically means any development that will occur in the future. You have proven time and time again that you really have no argument and just post the same old “it’s a straw man” crap. No, it’s a fact. I saw it when I was in city planning in California in the 70’s and have seen the same game ever since. You find a toad or a gnat and hold up development until it caves in or no longer makes sense. The impact is to delay projects and drive up the costs to unaffordable levels so that people now have to go out and get crazy mortgages and then lose their overpricd house.</p>
<p>How do you explain the fact that many countries that are held up as model societies are heavy into nuclear power? Keep looking into the past and you will get nowhere.<br>
And I may believe in global warming–as part of the natural earth cycle of cooling and warming. But the role of CO2 in it is marginal at best. I’m not about to spend trillions to go after one small factor in a puzzle that nobody really even understands yet.</p>
<p>And Kluge, it would be easier to know how you think if you would do more than make smartass obvious quips about Chernobyl and cosmonauts as if that proves anything for nuclear power today.</p>
I, for one, like to try to learn from the past. Much of what was built in the 70’s was absolute crap - arguably the worst decade for architecture, design and planning ever. I’ve been in city planning since 2001 and what I see today is that often times problems with projects are flushed out before they’re built - not afterwards. Most of what goes into EIR’s has nothing to do with “toads and gnats” but rather is an assessment of development’s impacts on traffic, water, sewage, schools, etc. The endangered species laws - a separate set of impacts which are also included in the overall set of studies included in an EIR - are rarely a factor.</p>
<p>I believe in making an effort to understand the consequences of our actions, using science to guide our decision making process, and giving consideration to the future generations which will have to live with the consequences of our decisions. What guides your opinions, Barrons?</p>