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.
Bump!
This is all nothing more than appeasement towards the environmental wackos.
My father worked in the energy industry. He was a good source of information about what worked well for the large scale electrical grid.
Geothermal energy is fine except that it has natural-caused chemicals in its make-up that are extremely corrosive. Most, if not all, must be replaced frequently and that becomes expensive.
Dad used to refer to coal plants as ‘dirt burners’. Since he was a licensed nuclear engineer, one could say he was prejudiced!
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?