Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 | 2 a.m.
The federal government will do a sweeping study of the environmental effects of solar power plant development on public land in the Southwest, in part to speed up approval of solar projects.
Sun Archives
- Nevada to be part of solar study (5-30-2008)
- Energy all around us (5-11-2008)
- State says 'wait' on solar system rentals (3-21-2008)
But for developers, the study may be a fast track to the slow lane. While the Bureau of Land Management, which controls 67 percent of Nevada land, including many rural areas where solar arrays would be located, completes a lengthy study, the agency will impose a moratorium on new applications to put solar panels on federal land. Developers will have to wait at least 22 months — until at least spring 2010 — for the results of the study.
The BLM says the moratorium is needed because it has a backlog of pending applications and many of the requests are highly complicated.
Solar developers say the lag of nearly two years will hurt.
“That immediately is going to slow the momentum of a growing economy of solar business in the state of Nevada,” said Chris Brooks, director of the renewable energy division of Bombard Electric, which installed solar panels at Nellis Air Force Base. “Twenty-two months will drive businesses out of existence.”
Those in Nevada could be particularly hard-hit because 87 percent of its land is federally controlled, including the 67 percent that is BLM land; the other 20 percent is managed by other federal agencies such as the Air Force, the Energy Department and the National Park Service.
Brooks and other solar energy insiders said the moratorium, especially coupled with uncertainty in Congress over long-term tax credits for solar development, would discourage solar manufacturers from locating in the Southwest.
“If you delay the process much ... industry might go to another nation,” Brooks said. “If you’re going to make the process more cumbersome in all six states where solar is most viable, there is absolutely no sense in locating manufacturing” in Nevada.
And that means lost potential jobs, according to a solar industry insider who asked to remain anonymous because he must work with the BLM on future projects.
“It’s really bad for the solar industry and it’s really bad for Nevada,” he said. “It means delays in jobs, delays in economic development, increased reliance on natural gas, electric power. What’s the upside?”
The BLM has received 125 applications — including 23 in Nevada — to use federal land for solar plants.
The oldest of the 125 was filed more than three years ago, according to Katherine Gensler, manager of regulatory and legislative affairs with the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Gensler and Linda Resseguie of the BLM said delays on some of those applications are due to developers new to the solar industry not meeting BLM deadlines.
Gensler said BLM is so backed up with pending applications that the agency couldn’t have begun analyzing new requests before the study is completed anyway. Still, the moratorium has the industry buzzing.
The Nevada applications, 11 in Nye County and 12 in Clark County, would involve 211,000 acres of federal land and could produce 15,000 megawatts, more than twice the peak summer load in Southern Nevada. The 125 applications nationwide, if approved, would power 20 million American homes, according to the BLM.
Gensler said most of the Nevada applications were filed in 2007.
Resseguie said many developers expressed concern over the moratorium at a meeting Monday in Riverside, Calif., where the BLM took public comment on the scope of the study. Another meeting was scheduled for Tuesday night in Barstow, Calif.
The Las Vegas meeting is at 6 p.m. today at the Clarion Hotel and Suites, 325 E. Flamingo Road. For information, visit www.solareis.anl.gov.
“Obviously it (the moratorium) took some companies by surprise and is going to affect their business plans,” Resseguie said. “Some of the companies ... are more affected by our decision than others.”
Gilbert Cohen, vice president of engineering and operations for Acciona Solar Power, the company that built a large solar plant in Boulder City, said his company is one of those hurt by the moratorium. It could keep Acciona from filing applications for at least two large-scale solar projects in Southern Nevada, although he couldn’t estimate how much that might cost the company.
“It’s the cost of not doing business,” he said.
The BLM in 2006 completed a similar study of the effects of wind farm development in the Midwest. The agency did not, however, halt applications during that process, which began in 2003. Resseguie said that was because wind resources were geographically dispersed and there were no multiple applications for any single location, as there are in California for solar plants.
She said the BLM may in the future hold competitive auctions for parcels with multiple solar applications.
But in the meantime, the freeze could place a dollar value on applications filed, which may drive partnerships and deal-making in the industry, Resseguie said.
And the limited number of active applications moving through the BLM queue could drive up prices, said Tom Fair, renewable energy executive for Sierra Pacific Resources, Nevada Power’s parent company. He called the 125 existing applications “a bit of a land rush.”
Another concern is that over the course of the 22-month moratorium, the fast-moving solar industry may develop new technologies that won’t be analyzed by the BLM in its study, he said.
One step forward - two steps back; typical Fed approach.
Do I smell Big Oil here?
I don't want solar panels on 211,000 acres of public land. I like the desert and don't think we should have to give it all up so we can pay the solar industry for our power. There are plenty of rooftops and disturbed lands in Nevada. Plus, desert plants store C02 and scraping them up for these ugly solar panels will only increase the carbon in the air which will warm the planet more.
This is not about clean energy, it is about money. Give tax breaks to those who use home solar energy. Give tax breaks to make the cost come down for retail giants. It is easy to make do-it yourself prices come down, but this has alway been about big profits for big energy. Let's hope we can stop this "green" assault on our public land. There's really nothing green about it. The only green involves $$$...
We should be building more of those housing projects that have solar panels on their rooftops -- I know there is one in Vegas. If we just build big solar farms out in the desert and transfer the electricity over hundreds of miles of power lines, we waste a lot of energy and give more profits to new energy companies. Business as usual. I say bring down the price of small solar panels for home use. I don't want my public lands giving breaks to some out-of-state company to build solar farms! Won't help my rural town any.
We need to relocalize.
It is about money.
Even with the megabucks from Uncle Sam and the laws that require renewable energy, solar and wind is so expensive that it will never be able to compete with coal, nuclear or natural gas.
Unless it is force down our throats.
If they do that and we are paying $1,000 a month in utility bills then I hope we throw out the bums.
Lol about solar panels on houses.
It cost about $20,000 to have that system.
It will take about 20 years to break even and then the system will need to be replaced.
Sure lets take money out your paycheck so the government can turn away and give you a discount on the solar power system.
Udd,
You missed my point. I am talking about the plants in the desert that would be scraped up as well as the soil crusts. CAM plants. Look up Crassulacean acid metabolism. Of course the panels won't increase C02, but scraping up the land to place them in the desert will. Yes there is life out there. Other problems will be water rights(water is needed to wash dust off panels), grazing rights, recreation, etc. Enough to stop this assault on public lands. This will not just happen.
I guess now that anyone who likes open space is now working for the oil companies. Not working for the oil companies, just thinking of ways to use green energy that do not destroy our open space. Sounds like Udd is a chump for big power companies. What an ignorant individual. Do you actually think covering the desert with solar panels will stop the use of oil? Do you actually think the climate will cool if we cover the desert? Science says the climate is pretty changed already. We do not have to destroy our open space so a few big power companies can get rich. Don't be such a chump for big energy! There are also a lot of people living out in the desert who do not want their homes destroyed so a few people can feel good about themselves. We can make a transition to clean energy and do it in a way that is green and not an assault on our plant and wildlife. Don't be such a narrow minded fool. Get some panels for your roof and turn off some appliances. Use a swamp cooler instead of an AC. Green energy is not green when it destroys so many natural resources.
jf:
Duh! Do you read? I tried to go solar and was informed that it would cost me $40k to get partly off the grid! I am saying that we need to give federal breaks to solar-panel companies instead of oil companies, to bring down the price for private citizens.
Do you think the price of electricity will be low when those solar farm companies sell you power shipped hundreds of miles away from my rural county? No, it will be astronomical.
And, I think it will take 20 years to get solar farms online anyway, enough to replace oil/coal.
Point is, I cannot afford to get solar on my house. Let's go ahead and burn the coal up. It's cheap and already online. We can't stop the climate from changing anyway.
Is this really about oil? Is there a solar powered car? Do you guys actually think that plastering the last open space (and killing a lot of wildlife) with solar panels will stop the demand for oil? No, there are still no solar powered cars. Things like public transportation, conservation,using less energy are up to the individual. Don't depend on the federal government or a big power company to meet your feel good energy needs. These solar farms will be stalled for years. So it's up to you Udd. Stop driving. Put a windmill in your back yard. Get rid of that dish washer. Get a solar rechargeable battery for your laptop. What are you doing to back up your strong words, uddeboda?
Suddenly, the Greens are pissy about all the Red Tape involved in creating a new power plant??? Boo F'ing Hoo!
We've killed off the ability to creat Nat Gas plants, Clean Coal plants or Nuclear Plants in Nevada. So why are we going to cry a river for the Solar lobby????
Try getting rid of the Environmental Impact Studies (created by the same extremists who are now pushing wind and solar), the Endangered Species Act (by the people who put Polar Bears on the list just to prevent coal plants in the US) and every other nonsensical paperpushing rule at the BLM or DOI. The need for energy is GROWING!!!! We need to INCREASE the amount of energy (including the politically correct stuff) faster than the bureaucrats can process it.
If Harry Reid really gave a rats @ss about his state, he would stop demogoguing the oil industry and let us drill off-shore and in the barren tundra of Alaska. And Harry would be lobbying to get the Red Tape removed for new energy plants in Nevada. Unfortunately, Harry cares more about extremists in NY/DC/LA/Bos than LV. He helped block a new clean coal plant in NV which would sell power to CA and create more jobs here (union jobs, Harry!!!!) and his refusal to allow a vote on drilling for new oil and nat gas is guaranteeing that all of us here in Nevada will be paying $5 for unleaded by the end of the year. Harry don't care. Harry doesn't buy gas. Harry doesn't listen to Searchlight. Harry listens to K Street.
Oh, and 'Sunlizard', the internet you are using cannot be powered by 'solar rechargeable batteries'. You might want to just admit that your dream society doesn't exist. And if it did, most Americans wouldn't want to live in it. We did that - in the 19th Century.
Solar thermal plants require large sources of water.
I guess they are planning to build some pipelines, too.
Udde:
You may have a turbine on top your house or something near it.
Here are reasons why wind is so expensive:
1) Wind farms have to be built on large vast acreage of land. One has to chose to either build on public pristine park land or purchase land from private entities which is usually expensive.
2) Winds farms are in remote areas and it cost a lot of money to build tranmissions lines to get the power to urban areas. Usually wind farms do not generate enough energy to justify the huge cost of building tranmissions lines.
3) To build and maintain the turbines onces needs to build a vast network of roads. Usually turbines are located in mountains or hills in remote areas. This is a costly affair to build the road networt in tough remote areas.
Here are some other issues:
1) Wind is not predictable and not available 24/7. So it can not be core source of energy. We need core sources of energy that are 24/7 unless we are willing turn the lights only when the wind blows. Storing large amounts energy in batteries is very very expensive.
2) Wind usually does not blow during the hot summer months. So it will not help with peak demand with is the driving force in setting energy capacity needs.
3) There are not many places were there are cheap land, wind blows a lot and transmission lines near by. For this reason, we will not see wind play a critical part in renewables. Solar thermal and earth thermal are much more likely. Solar is more expensive then nuclear, coal, oil and natural gas, but it is cheaper than wind.
bpjam, you are one of those conservatives who wants it all. A TV in every bathroom? No, that lifestyle will be history. Your stale conservative rants will be a thing of the past when your energy is rationed. I remember when we did just fine without the Internet and could live without it. It's over rated anyway. Our energy needs are growing with your conservative wasteline. Stop being such a d**k and turn a few switches off. The desert won't get platsered with solar panels because it will just cost too much...NOT becuase I don't want it...LOL. I love listening to these Fox educated numbnuts!!
fair enough Udd, I just hope you are willing to sacrifice some of alaska because I don't think my home should be sacrificed just to save yours. Solar panels do not even work in extreme heat which would make Alaska a good energy producer for half the year...
"Sunlizard":
If and when energy is rationed (an asinine concept, imo) = it will be because of the eco-facist liberal and their choking, gagging and constipating supplies of available energy now, to FORCE (socialism or communism, you pick?) we all to abandon what we CAN do.
NOT being all we can be IS the liberal way...........
You guys should all watch "WASTED" on the Green Planet Channel. Just turning off a light bulb or two, turning off your tv (not just sleep mode), riding a bike to work or public transport, even not taking a shower every day unless absolutely nessecary (like weekends when you don't go anywhere), will help lower the consumption of fuel and water.
For those who think that all life is impossible without fossil fuels, there are ways to reduce its consumption. How about tankless water heaters? How about getting rid of those huge gas-guzzlers (SUV's and trucks) when you drive in the city? What could possibly be the justification for that? A small sub-compact that get's 35-40 mph is a much more sensible alternative. Better yet, stop building huge Casino's and gigantic condo's, and invest that money into a tram and light rail system. Everyone benefits from that. Metal wheels last a lot longer that rubber tires. And with hydro-electric power from Hoover Dam (so long as it has water!), it has a reasonably clean energy source. The dam is already there, no need to build a new one. So maybe the lights of Las Vegas will not glow so brightly. Better than not at all!
Without a plan to utilize renewable energy, we will be facing a shortage sooner than later. We have become a fossil-fuel energy based society, and without the supplement of renewable recources, this planet's standards of living will not survive much longer.
With better management of the fossil fuels, and the addition of solar and wind power, and each person taking more responsibility for his or her own personal lifestyle, we may be able to leave our grand-children a planet worth living on.
And for NVMakz, there is a LOT of difference between Socialism and Communism. In Communism, the government owns everything. In Socialism, the government works FOR the good of the people (what a concept!). In a Socialistic country, you may pay more taxes, but you get good roads, good public transport, free health care, including the drugs that are needed, and free education for everyone. They are more concerned about their own people (which is as it should be), than going abroad to make others into our clones. Can you imagine the whole world consuming the amount of energy that we do, all at once?
The short sightedness of our politicians never ceases to amaze me. First, they allow all our jobs to be exported to other countries, and then, they try to put a stop to an industry that could put us in the fore-front again.
Udde where do you live?
OK udde....then just use wind power.
When the wind is not blowing, and it is 120 outside, are you going to jump on a bike to power your A/C?
Udde I think your 6 cents story is BS. You should give more details, like the name of the power company. Is 100% of your power wind?
Where do you live (just city, state)?
I think your wind power plan might work.
All we need to do is move the entire country to the north pole or south pole in the Land of the Midnight Sun.
In the continental USA, most land areas are not suitable for wind turbines because the wind does not blow hard enough for a significant amount of time to justify the cost of the wind turbines.
I guess we could have wind farms in various regions and then shift power around a transmission grid when one farm does not have wind.
That would mean very large turbine farms to handle mutli-state region loads and massive investment in even more transmission lines far beyond what is need to support local wind farms.
Also currently, there are no tranmissions lines that go across the Rocky or Applachian mountain ranges.
You six cents might work in the arctic range on a small scale were the wind never stops blowing but it would not even be close to the cost of wind energy in the US for supplying energy on a large commerical scale.
If it did then we would have already be using wind energy.
I know that I smelled something reading your articles and that smell was not coming from roses.
You saying we should look at Germany.
Below is a lot of articles listing the problems that Germany is having with its wind projects.
Biggest flaw in wind power is that it can not be relied to generate power on demand. Even farms in the ocean can not be relied on. If there is a storm then the farm has to be shut down. Storms are not predictable.
This makes it very impratical as an energy source.
Wind energy can only be a supplmental power source.
The below articles state these points:
1) Because wind power farms are not available 24/7 Germany can not use it as a core source of power
2) When a wind farm is not producing energy it dramatically increase the cost of power from that farm
3) The german government is having to heavily subisizing the cost with government funds to keep the cost down
4) The Germans are now embarking on an agressive plan in building coal-fired plants to help with its energy needs
5) There is a large investment in building power lines to get the wind power from the farms to the people
6) Maintaince of winds farms are high cost in of labor and parts due to turbines breaking down much more than expected.
Here is an article saying the Germany is having to heavily subsidized the Wind industry to keep the cost to the consumer being out of control.
It says, "The only problem–a big one–is that wind energy is very expensive. Extracting one kilowatt/hour of energy from the wind costs four times as much as using fossil fuels. "
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_03/uk...
http://www.wind-energie.de/en/
Here is an article by the BCC on problems with German wind projects. It says, "Yet there is a lingering question-mark over the cost of all this, and whether building so many wind turbines truly makes economic sense."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4944...
Here is an article that claims that the German government is trying to hide the try cost of wind energy.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/G...
Here is an article by a German Power company.
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/e...
It states, "1) Wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant"
Also, this article says that Germany now is a plan to build 26 new coal-fire power plants.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germ...
Here is another article questioning the cost of wind power:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?art...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn...
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html...
INo matter what. Wind and solar are limited because they are not energy on demand sources. One is dependent on mature nature for those sources to produce energy and mother nature can be unpredictable.
That makes these sources not valuable to masses that need energy.
If they rely on wind power and mature nature has storm that requires turning off the wind farm then one has to have back up sources.
Just to have a back source just for those situations would be very expensive to build and maintain.
So that means wind can only be use in a very limited way. Probably can only be use at 10% source and just for supplemental purposes.
In the USA, there are tons of companies lined up to do solar and wind projects.
They are just waiting for Congress to open the purse strings so that the flood of the subisized green bucks flow into their pockets.
Solar and wind are too expensive plus they are not 24/7 energy sources. Power companies will only build these projects if congress forks out the cash so they can make a profit.
The power companies across the country are fighting to build coal plants. It is an uphill battle.
I am OK with that as long we also do not quote any site that will get financially rewarded by promoting wind energy like companies that build wind farms.
The present global annual demand for primary energy arrives as solar energy in the deserts alone within 5.7 hours of sunshine.
The Southwestern US has a solar resource that is better than the oil fields of the Middle East.
A solar power plant by the size of Los Angeles can supply the entire electricity for the entire US.
Stating that renewable energy might be too costly is cynical in the face of the victims of climate change and ignoring the real costs of dirty coal and subsidized nuclear.
It is mind-boggling that administration wants to thwart the best energy resource we have instead of supporting it with everything we have.
All background info you need you can find here:
1) A Solar Grand Plan, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...
"... The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. ..."
2) Renewable Energy Atlas of the West, http://www.energyatlas.org/contents/defa...
And this is how it works:
3) Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) http://www.trecers.net/index.html
The BLM has a backlog of 125 applications? Well, employ 125 people and get the job done in a few months. Time is of the essence.
This are the reasons why solar thermal plants are expensive.
1) They require large tracts of land in remote areas.
2) Since they will be in remote areas you have to spend a ton of money to build tranmission lines to get the power to the urban areas
3) Solar thermal plants require lots of water. So if you put them in the desert then you have to build water pipelands
4) Solar plants are only operational for part of the day and on many days they are not running at all. These cause the cost of the energy to go up for the capital cost is spread over a lower number of units as oppose to a coal plant that runs 24/7
The biggest problem with solar is that it can not produce energy on demand. One is totally dependent on mother nature. Also it can only run during parts of the day.
Storing energy in batteries is extremely expensive.
For this reason of it not being a power on demand source, solar will never be able be a core source of energy. It may be able to supplement the power grid at around 10% to 20%.
GSHP are not being used by home owners in Nevada.
There is a push for commerical geothermal plants in the northern part of state.
There is an issue on how, when and who will pay the cost of building the transmission lines.
There is a discussion to build several coal plants in the north to justify the cost of building those transmissions lines.
I think you need a lot of land to have a GSHP system. All the houses in Vegas are built on tiny lots. We have tiny front yards and tiny back yards.
There are two reasons for this:
1) Maintaining lawns is expensive because of a lot of water issue
2) The developers make more money on tiny lots and they own the zoning boards.
"Regarding the proposed coal fired power plants up and around Ely, they will NEVER be built, too too much objections and emissions. If Vegas wants more power then you will have to build your own power station, if you can ever get permission to do so."
You might be right on this point. Senator Reid is very much against the coal plants. If Nevada does not get those plants then we will be really really screwed over in about 10 year to 20 years. Solar and wind, as I have said above, can not provide 24/7 on demand energy. Plus they are more expensive than coal.
So, perhaps we should buy private energy generating systems. When everybody else's house is dark, at least we will be able to keep the food cold in the frig.
Las Vegas might become a ghost town if the above happens.
I still do not believe your 6 cents story. Can you give me the name of your utility company?
First, there is no way you can get wind power 24/7. If the wind farms are at sea then when a powerful storm comes they have to shut it down.
I am OK with a very very long term plan to get away from fossil fuels. Nuclear seems the way to go. Wind and solar are too expensive and they do not offer 24/7 on demand energy. We should do it smart. Have some solar, some wind, a lot of coal, a lot of natural gas and a whole lot of nuclear.
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?con...
In the above link, it says that Nordic mix in 2010 is projected to only have 12.1% energy capacity that comes from renewable energy and they are predicting that wind component will stop increasing. Nearly 50% of Nordic power comes from Hydro. The rest comes from Nuclear and Thermal sources.
In the study listed below talking about Nordic wind power, it says: “The intermittency of wind may in some cases limit the applicability of wind power when integrated directly into the distribution network.”
http://users.tkk.fi/~patte/pub/conf_2006...
In this pro-wind study, it says, “Two of the strongest challenges to wind power’s future prospects are the problems of intermittency and grid reliability.”
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/22/37/34878...
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?con...
According to this article they are saying that wind power capacity is going to be flat in the Nordic mix.
They are expecting Hydro to grow even more.
jfnance32,
This may interest you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_therm...
"Molten salt storage
A variety of fluids have been tested to transport the sun's heat, including water, air, oil, and sodium, but molten salt was selected as best. Molten salt is used in solar power tower systems because it is liquid at atmosphere pressure, it provides an efficient, low-cost medium in which to store thermal energy, its operating temperatures are compatible with todays high-pressure and high-temperature steam turbines, and it is non-flammable and nontoxic. In addition, molten salt is used in the chemical and metals industries as a heat-transport fluid, so experience with molten-salt systems exists for non-solar.
The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium-nitrate, commonly called saltpeter. The salt melts at 430 F and is kept liquid at 550 F in an insulated cold storage tank. The uniqueness of this solar system is in de-coupling the collection of solar energy from producing power, electricity can be generated in periods of inclement weather or even at night using the stored thermal energy in the hot salt tank. Normally tanks are well insulated and can store energy for up to a week. As an example of their size, tanks that provide enough thermal storage to power a 100-megawatt turbine for four hours would be about 30 feet tall and 80 feet in diameter. Studies show that the two-tank storage system could have an annual efficiency of about 99 percent."