Inexplicable! - New England Patriots Forums

***shmessy*** · #1 06-28-2008, 09:13 AM

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...3/daily67.html

The Bush administration has put a two-year stop to solar energy projects on federal lands in Arizona and other Western states while it studies their environmental impact.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy will study the impact of solar energy production and other facilities that could be developed on public lands in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado and Nevada.

There are 125 applications by solar energy companies to build facilities on public lands in those states.

The review will take two years worrying a solar energy sector looking to expand in the western U.S. including Arizona.

A number of U.S., German and Japanese solar energy companies want to locate or expand in Arizona and other Western states amid concerns about high energy costs and emissions.

Critics have questioned the Bush administration policies and links oil and gas companies saying the administration is too cozy with those energy sectors.

_______________________________________________

PatriotsReign · #2 06-28-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/s...3/daily67.html

The Bush administration has put a two-year stop to solar energy projects on federal lands in Arizona and other Western states while it studies their environmental impact.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy will study the impact of solar energy production and other facilities that could be developed on public lands in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, California, Colorado and Nevada.

There are 125 applications by solar energy companies to build facilities on public lands in those states.

The review will take two years worrying a solar energy sector looking to expand in the western U.S. including Arizona.

A number of U.S., German and Japanese solar energy companies want to locate or expand in Arizona and other Western states amid concerns about high energy costs and emissions.

Critics have questioned the Bush administration policies and links oil and gas companies saying the administration is too cozy with those energy sectors.

_______________________________________________

The environmental impact of solar energy panels???

Are you @#$%%$^^%$ kidding me?

I can tell all the experts right now..There is no impact! Well, maybe on coal & oil producing power plants but not on the environment. Besides, since when does BUSH worry about the environment?

Seriously, how can solor energy panels impact the environment any worse than coal & oil? What as ashwipe!

EMERGENCY BROADCAST STATEMENT

All alternative energy projects put on hold until further environmental impact studies are completed. That include fuel cell automobiles

Freakn EFF Bush!! Thanks for pissing me off Shmessy!

In my opinion, Bush should immediately be investigated for his motives on this plan. In a time when the average citizen has been punched below the belt by the oil industry, this is inexuseable. The media needs to make a HUGE deal about this.

Hey, maybe he's just trying to give Exxon and the rest of Big Oil a chance to make sure they can squeeze every profit penny they can...after all, we don't want to see big oil get hurt, do we?

***scout*** · #3 06-28-2008, 09:47 AM

This is the reason that we need a Democratic President with a vast majority of D's in the House and Senate. If ever there was a time to re-direct our energy policies, this is the time. It may not happen with the Democrats, but it sure is not happening with the Republicans. All the ducks are lined up, high fuel prices, giving $$$$$ to shady nations vs homegrown producers. The other day, McCain offered millions for some invention of a battery. Whooooooooo-whooooooooooo! Kind of like offering $ to the fishermen for the biggest catch. Wouldn't giving mass quantities of $$$$ to fishing fleets secure your goal quicker. I dislike a majority of one party dominating all phases of our government, but hard times calls for this type of wishing, which actually has a very good chance of happening. If the Dems' don't change the energy policies, we the people need a revolution.

***shmessy*** · #4 06-28-2008, 09:54 AM

I prefer to keep this subject non-partisan if we can. McCain is a huge improvement over the Anti-Science Luddite we have in the Oval office right now. Further, we didn't exactly jump off of fossil fuels during the 8 years of Clinton (of course, the AE technology wasn't as advanced then, and it's relative consumer price to oil wasn't as competitive then either)

This subject is too big and important for it to devolve into partisanship.

This move confounds all human sense whatsoever.

PatriotsReign · #5 06-28-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

I prefer to keep this subject non-partisan if we can. McCain is a huge improvement over the Anti-Science Luddite we have in the Oval office right now. Further, we didn't exactly jump off of fossil fuels during the 8 years of Clinton (of course, the AE technology wasn't as advanced then, and it's relative consumer price to oil wasn't as competitive then either)

This subject is too big and important for it to devolve into partisanship.

This move confounds all human sense whatsoever.

I think we can keep it non-partisan, but we can't leave Bush out of the discussion. After all, it was you who started by quoting;

"The Bush administration has put a two-year stop to solar energy projects on federal lands in Arizona and other Western states while it studies their environmental impact."

Also, I think history proves the poor republican record on the environment. What other angle can this be discussed?

***otis p. driftwood*** · #6 06-28-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I think we can keep it non-partisan, but we can't leave Bush out of the discussion. After all, it was you who started by quoting;

"The Bush administration has put a two-year stop to solar energy projects on federal lands in Arizona and other Western states while it studies their environmental impact."

Also, I think history proves the poor republican record on the environment. What other angle can this be discussed?

Since I would like to respect Shmess' wish to keep it non-partisan--but I also can't keep my trap shut--I'm merely going to mention to Pee-Reign..."poor republican record?"...just so you know I saw it.

And the BLM isn't like GWB's left hand you know. At this point I'd be shocked if GWB even knows the BLM exists.

***shmessy*** · #7 06-28-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

I think we can keep it non-partisan, but we can't leave Bush out of the discussion. After all, it was you who started by quoting;

"The Bush administration has put a two-year stop to solar energy projects on federal lands in Arizona and other Western states while it studies their environmental impact."

Also, I think history proves the poor republican record on the environment. What other angle can this be discussed?

There is a huge difference in saying the 'Bush Administration' (who acted in this case) versus saying 'All Republicans'.

Simple as that.

We will not be able to have a truly effective discussion on this if it devolves into a peeing contest. This is a centrally important subject , too important to get sidetracked.

***otis p. driftwood*** · #8 06-28-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

All involve two types of solar plants, concentrating and photovoltaic. Concentrating solar plants use mirrors to direct sunlight toward a synthetic fluid, which powers a steam turbine that produces electricity. Photovoltaic plants use solar panels to convert sunlight into electric energy.

Much progress has been made in the development of both types of solar technology in the last few years. Photovoltaic solar projects grew by 48 percent in 2007 compared with 2006. Eleven concentrating solar plants are operational in the United States, and 20 are in various stages of planning or permitting, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

The manager of the Bureau of Land Management’s environmental impact study, Linda Resseguie, said that many factors must be considered when deciding whether to allow solar projects on the scale being proposed, among them the impact of construction and transmission lines on native vegetation and wildlife. In California, for example, solar developers often hire environmental experts to assess the effects of construction on the desert tortoise and Mojave ground squirrel.

Water use can be a factor as well, especially in the parched areas where virtually all of the proposed plants would be built. Concentrating solar plants may require water to condense the steam used to power the turbine.

“Reclamation is another big issue,” Ms. Resseguie said. “These plants potentially have a 20- to 30-year life span. How to restore that land is a big question for us.”

Another benefit of the study will be a single set of environmental criteria to weigh future solar proposals, which will ultimately speed the application process, said the assistant Interior Department secretary for land and minerals management, C. Stephen Allred. The land agency’s manager of energy policy, Ray Brady, said the moratorium on new applications was necessary to “ensure that we are doing an adequate level of analysis of the impacts.”

In the meantime, bureau officials emphasized, they will continue processing the more than 130 applications received before May 29, measuring each one’s environmental impact.

While proponents of solar energy agree on the need for a sweeping environmental study, many believe that the freeze is unwarranted. Some, like Ms. Gordon, whose company has two pending proposals for solar plants on public land, say small solar energy businesses could suffer if they are forced to turn to more expensive private land for development.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us...nQXWaZPRAGG+Yw

Kills me to cite a NY Times story.

See, Reign...instead of just letting my knee twitch away, I wanted to find out more about it.

Apparently the studies need to be done. Even environmentalists and solar people agree. Solar people don't want a 2 year freeze, simply because they want to get started now (who can blame them). So what happens if we let them start building and there's a leak of some of the coolant or something and a bunch of desert land and tortises and endangered bugs get offed? Then a bunch of people will be yelling that Bush didn't care about the environment.

I'm still not convinced, and I'm not arguing in favor of the freeze at all, but I did want to point out there was a little more to it than the initial blush.

***shmessy*** · #9 06-28-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/us...nQXWaZPRAGG+Yw

Kills me to cite a NY Times story.

See, Reign...instead of just letting my knee twitch away, I wanted to find out more about it.

Apparently the studies need to be done. Even environmentalists and solar people agree. Solar people don't want a 2 year freeze, simply because they want to get started now (who can blame them). So what happens if we let them start building and there's a leak of some of the coolant or something and a bunch of desert land and tortises and endangered bugs get offed? Then a bunch of people will be yelling that Bush didn't care about the environment.

I'm still not convinced, and I'm not arguing in favor of the freeze at all, but I did want to point out there was a little more to it than the initial blush.

Bullsh!t, a. Consider the simultaneous juxtaposition.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3713879.story

June 28, 2008

PINEDALE, WYO. -- Federal land managers are recommending companies be allowed to drill almost 4,400 new natural gas wells in western Wyoming, where energy development already is blamed for a spike in air and water pollution.

The Bureau of Land Management's final drilling plan for the Pinedale Anticline also calls for new air pollution controls. The plan is subject to a 30-day public review before a final decision is issued.

http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content...pts_COGCC.html

"New drilling regulations being considered by a Colorado agency wouldn’t apply to federal land, the largest part of western Colorado lands, the Bureau of Land Management said in a letter it sent to the group.

Sally Wisely, state director for the bureau, wrote to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, saying federal legislation preempts state law when state laws “stand as an obstacle” against the will of Congress."

***otis p. driftwood*** · #10 06-28-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shmessy

Bullsh!t, a. Consider the simultaneous juxtaposition.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,3713879.story

June 28, 2008

PINEDALE, WYO. -- Federal land managers are recommending companies be allowed to drill almost 4,400 new natural gas wells in western Wyoming, where energy development already is blamed for a spike in air and water pollution.

The Bureau of Land Management's final drilling plan for the Pinedale Anticline also calls for new air pollution controls. The plan is subject to a 30-day public review before a final decision is issued.

So I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't defending the freeze?

And yes, I'm aware of the petro-related use of Fed land. As I said, it's a headshaker.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode