Posted on 04/14/2014 11:03:38 PM PDT by SatinDoll
PRIMM, Nevada – As part of President Obama’s all-of-the-above approach to energy, today Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar “flipped the switch” on the Enbridge Silver State North solar project, the first large-scale solar energy facility on U.S. public lands to deliver power to American consumers.
This milestone is in line with the administration’s broad commitment to expanding production of all sources of American made energy, including from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, which has doubled in the President’s first term, as well as domestic production of oil and gas resources, which have increased each year the President has been in office.
“This is a landmark day for solar energy and for the nation,” Salazar said at the dedication ceremony with state and company officials. “Silver State North was the first solar project we approved on public lands in Nevada and --18 months later -- the first of our priority projects to provide clean energy to the power grid. This is a model of industry and government working together to strengthen local economies, generating good jobs and affordable, reliable and sustainable power.”
The Interior Department has undertaken an unprecedented approach to permitting renewable energy on public lands. Prior to 2009, there were no solar energy projects permitted on public lands. Under Secretary Salazar and Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey’s leadership, Interior has authorized 29 large-scale renewable energy projects on or involving public lands, including 16 solar facilities, 5 wind farms, and 8 geothermal plants. When completed, these projects will provide more than 6,500 megawatts of power to communities across the West, enough to power more than 2 million homes.
“Public lands provide Americans with vital mineral and agricultural resources, as well as recreational opportunities that help power local economies and generate jobs around the nation,” said Bob Abbey, Director of the Bureau of Land Management. “Today in Clark County, Nevada, we are adding solar energy to that public lands’ portfolio of benefits. This project symbolizes a new partnership between government and industry that can responsibly tap the immense renewable energy resources of this great state, provide clean, reliable power to homes and businesses, and open a new chapter in the beneficial use of our nation’s public lands.”
Located 40 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada, Silver State North is a 50-megawatt plant that will use photovoltaic technology to generate enough power for about 9,000 Nevada homes. Developed by First Solar and owned by Enbridge, the project employed more than 380 construction workers during peak construction and 650 individuals over the course of the project. NV Energy has a power purchase agreement to sell the solar project’s electricity to the Nevada market.
By harnessing the area’s vast solar resources, the Silver State North facility generates electricity with no air emissions, no waste production, and no water use. The plant, using technology with the smallest carbon footprint of any PV solar system, displaces about 42,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually – the equivalent of taking 8,000 cars off the road. The project site is strategically located near a major transmission hub.
Constructed on 618 acres of public land managed by Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, the solar project underwent full environmental analysis and public review. The BLM worked closely with federal, state and local partners, members of the environmental and conservation community, and interested stakeholders to protect wildlife and advance this environmentally sound project. First Solar and the BLM worked in concert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a relocation/translocation plan for desert tortoises found on the site. The BLM also required a natural color palette for painted structures and controlled night lighting, designed to reduce visual impacts on the local community.
The Bureau of Land Management oversees more than 2.5 million acres in Clark County, Nevada, including over 1.1 million acres managed for conservation. This includes over 709,000 acres of habitat the BLM has designated primarily for the conservation of the threatened desert tortoise.
The efficiencies of then to now is significant so I can see how they might have been disappointed. I guess in 15 yrs mine will look like stone age but I have the peace of mind of saving a bunch on electric and would be little affected power-wise if the grid collapsed.
BTTT
Why did prior to 2009 were solar projects not permitted on public land? I’m betting there were questions of ownership, and therefore, the Fed had to work out legal issues and deals with states and localities and companies to keep everyone happy.
A 300 kw traditionally fired plant in Wisc produced enough electricity to power 1500 homes for a year. A 280 kw solar plant in Cali, iirc, will power about 110,000 homes with the plant being run by about 60 kw of the power it generates. That is again, about half of the usable energy produced. A solar array on your house that would provide you the average 12,000 kwh annually that Americans supposedly use would cost in the neighborhood of 30,000 bucks. The Solar plant just mentioned cost approximately 3.5 billion of federal tax dollars, not counting anything anyone else put into it. That same amount of only the federal money would totally provide independent home power for 116,000 homes with never a power bill again for those individuals.
So, someone wants the centralized plant rather than individual independence, and, of course, the power companies do, and that is because of the enormous amount of money that goes from the consumer to the company. I don’t blame them. The Federal government is another issue, though. Where does the money go? Since it’s on “their property”, does the Fed now own the power plants? I’d say, of course they do. Why else fight to have them on “your” land. (Threatening the definition of “their” land is an absolutely deadly thing to them.)
In this case, we’re told we will have 6500 mw, and will power in the neighborhood of 2 million homes. At the rate of half, we should see about 3,250,000 homes powered. These 30 facilities are using up for their own power needs about a third of what they produce rather than a fourth.
What we learned in the solar plant that was priced in federal dollars is that individuals would be better served with independence by federal dollars. Instead, the Fed chose the route of monthly energy bills...and those probably going hugely to them + we’re sure they won’t lower the taxes they normally attach to energy bills. (So not only do they own your groceries, and the store, but they also tax you on them. Can anyone say ‘I owe my soul to the company store’?)
Forgive this run-on post. I’m just thinking out loud.
Essentially, what we have is a “super-state” made up of huge chunks of the other 50 states. It has no governor, legislature, judiciary, or population. It can continue adding to its size as the other states have rivers change course, president’s declare new nature preserves, and the EPA declare more of the common grasshoppers endangered.
It is, of course, unconstitutional, given the unique instructions in the Constitution for the District of Columbia’s creation, D.C. being the ‘seat of government’ that the Fed was supposed to “own” and oversee.
Why go to all that trouble if the Founders thought that the Fed owned as property owners everything not yet fully settled at that time?
CORRECTED COPY:
Why prior to 2009 were solar projects not permitted on public land? I’m betting there were questions of ownership, and therefore, the Fed had to work out legal issues and deals with states and localities and companies to keep everyone happy.
A 300 kw traditionally fired plant in Wisc produced enough electricity to power 150000 homes for a year. A 280 kw solar plant in Cali, iirc, will power about 110,000 homes with the plant being run by about 60 kw of the power it generates. That is again, about half of the usable energy produced. A solar array on your house that would provide you the average 12,000 kwh annually that Americans supposedly use would cost in the neighborhood of 30,000 bucks. The Solar plant just mentioned cost approximately 3.5 billion of federal tax dollars, not counting anything anyone else put into it. That same amount of only the federal money would totally provide independent home power for 116,000 homes with never a power bill again for those individuals.
So, someone wants the centralized plant rather than individual independence, and, of course, the power companies do, and that is because of the enormous amount of money that goes from the consumer to the company. I don’t blame the POWER COMPANIES. The Federal government is another issue, though. Where does the money go? Since it’s on “their property”, does the Fed now own the power plants? I’d say, of course they do. Why else fight to have them on “your” land. (Threatening the definition of “their” land is an absolutely deadly thing to them.)
In this case, we’re told we will have 6500 mw, and will power in the neighborhood of 2 million homes. At the rate of half, we should see about 3,250,000 homes powered. These 30 facilities are using up for their own power needs about a third of what they produce rather than a fourth.
What we learned in the solar plant that was priced in federal dollars is that individuals would be better served with independence by federal dollars. Instead, the Fed chose the route of monthly energy bills...and those probably going hugely to them + we’re sure they won’t lower the taxes they normally attach to energy bills. (So not only do they own your groceries, and the store, but they also tax you on them. Can anyone say ‘I owe my soul to the company store’?)
Forgive this run-on post. I’m just thinking out loud.
Essentially, what we have is a “super-state” made up of huge chunks of the other 50 states. It has no governor, legislature, judiciary, or population. It can continue adding to its size as the other states have rivers change course, president’s declare new nature preserves, and the EPA declare more of the common grasshoppers endangered.
It is, of course, unconstitutional, given the unique instructions in the Constitution for the District of Columbia’s creation, D.C. being the ‘seat of government’ that the Fed was supposed to “own” and oversee.
Why go to all that trouble if the Founders thought that the Fed owned as property owners everything not yet fully settled at that time?
I don’t remember the public being asked about building this crap on our land.
Good post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.