digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at ecogeek.org

US Calls for Moratorium on Solar...WHA?!

ecogeek.org — The world is such a strange place. Faced with the burgeoning demand sunny land in the southwest United States, the Bureau of Land Management has decided to put a two-year moratorium new solar power plants. During this period, they're going to be doing studies on the impact that solar power plants have on desert habitat and wildlife.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mejaredme, on 06/27/2008, -5/+147Insane!
    • patch, on 06/28/2008, -1/+7(comment abuse for the lazy)

      define:moratorium = A freeze on a particular type of development or activity
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Let them know what you think off this:

      http://www.blm.gov/nhp/feedback.htm
      • biotch, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4wrote to them... not like they care..
        wrote to my reps.... not like they care...
        and passed it on to a large email list of friends and family.... if enough people pass it on to our reps they may begin to care.
      • peacepeot67, on 06/28/2008, -2/+0Can we get a petition? This is beyond outrageous...
        I also wrote to the BLM thanxs for the link
    • U186, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Hey I know, if we wait long enough there wont be any wildlife left!

      Problem solved!
    • tomz17, on 06/28/2008, -4/+9I actually agree with this... Solar power is horribly inefficient at this stage. The environmental impact of a solar power plant (per megawatt generated over its lifetime) may INDEED be extremely harmful to the environment (EVEN compared to coal!)

      Let's just take a closer look at this before jumping on the bandwagon.

      -Tom

      P.S. Nuclear Power FTW!

      • ryodoan, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Tomz is right. In order to produce the same ammount of power as a coal burning plan you need to cover an area roughly 300 sq. miles with solar panels. Not only that but producing the solar panels is extremely expensive and polluting.

        There is a reason why private companies are not building solar power plants. They are to damn expensive for too little gain.
    • kublerross, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2wrong, totally sane
      ignore post above
      many companies are predicting $/watt solar panels rather soon especially if mass production techniques improve with expanding solar panel deployment

      what this means, its that it then becomes a financially viable solution

      imagine people putting solar panels in their yards, on their roofs, not paying for electricity!
      the horrors
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -5/+53hopefully new legislation will clear some of the bureaucratic red tape
    • philodygmn, on 06/28/2008, -0/+22LOL
    • Xalorous, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4The last thing our country needs is MORE LEGISLATION!
    • Skooma714, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
  • cashman57, on 06/27/2008, -31/+16With a Democrat controlled Congress I would not count on any common sense legislation.
    This is where private owners of desert land should take up the slack because obviously the government has too many political points to make.
    Desert habitat is not going to be harmed by solar collectors and we are not running low on desert.
    • ethornquist, on 06/28/2008, -3/+16BLM is stocked with Republican appointees. Someone things no solar power helps the Republicans. Next two questions: who? why?

      It may help the Republicans but this move hurts America.

    • UntoTheBreach, on 06/28/2008, -3/+29This isn't about Democrat controlled congress. It's about Bush and Cheney's hand-picked EPA ***** us over to hand an advantage to their sponsors one last time before they get the boot.

      Or does no one remember that Bush appointed (not voted, appointed) replacements to key members of the EPA with Oil Industry friendlies?

      Democrats only got control of Congress in 2005. I'm not saying their doing a good job, but they're not responsible for the solar energy freeze.
    • Anth, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Who on earth would want to own large sections of otherwise worthless desert land?

      Thats the problem - in Nevada, the federal govt owns something like 80% of the land in the entire state, most of which is controlled by the BLM (minus the various military bases).
  • dougvfr750, on 06/28/2008, -13/+316Do I smell Big Oil?
    • gtluke, on 06/28/2008, -35/+24no, you smell environmentalists.
      they don't stop at power plants, they will run you right into a cave and having you ***** in the woods.
      • wolferz, on 06/28/2008, -2/+33That's not an environmentalist... that's a Luddite.
      • UntoTheBreach, on 06/28/2008, -6/+32No, we smell big oil posing as environmentalists which has the effect of a) helping them get what they want and b) furthering the bad name environmentalists get from anyone in business because entrenched interests don't want to take the real and affordable steps toward renewable energy.
      • MortVent, on 06/28/2008, -13/+3Not much difference at times between the two.

      • Braxo, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Talk about environmentalists shooting themselves in the foot.

        I do think its asinine that we must wait two years for a study to be completed though.
    • Hawk2007, on 06/28/2008, -32/+4No, you smell liberals too busy taking time off of work for their "causes" that they don't have time to shower and have proper hygiene.

      Protesting Bush, big oil, and Karl Rove takes time ya know!
    • mal1964, on 06/28/2008, -11/+3No, I think they are unprepared to manage the growth and need more time to put a plan in place. If not the whole southwest desert might look like this
      http://www.ecogeek.org/images/image/desertsolar.jp ...
      • TopherT, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Fine by me. If we're going to get off of this ridiculous dependance on decomposed dinosaurs which, by the way are running out, we're going to need to make some compromises. I think we can do without desert mice in exchange for clean renewable energy.
      • jerwin, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5That would be cool!
      • biotch, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7thats a bunch of crap... They are more than prepared to install massive oil refineries all over alaska but cant handle the comparably simple task of solar power plants?
        Gimme a break.
      • WoollyMittens, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4***** mal1964. Do you work for an oil company or something? Unprepared? The US was prepared enough to plow through the entire middle east with tanks and bombs to secure oil-for-dollars.
      • mal1964, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1Relax its 2 years guys, Not forever.I bet the people waiting in line are big money electric companies anyway.
    • mal1964, on 06/28/2008, -10/+2Why do so many people think its "Big Oil"?
      • TopherT, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Because any environmentalist worth their salt would understand that solar is a hugely important part of our energy future, it is clean, renewable and mitigates large amounts of CO2 emissions.
      • mal1964, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1@Topher
        Nice answer if i were buying solar, But that's not the answer to my question.
      • SpinningHead, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Because for years big oil has lobbied against investments in renewables and for subsidies and tax breaks for oil. They've even gone so far in the past as to buy up patents on renewable technologies.
    • jerrycurley, on 06/28/2008, -11/+0I don't knom do you? Because, you ***** idiit, it is the DEMOCRATS who are blocking it, not the Big Oil loving republicans.

      had yuou read the article and realized it was about environmental concerns you would have realized that. Or, if you were not simple minded and knew that oil produced a very small amount of our electric grid, you would have known too. Either way, you would have stopped yourself from posting what you did and embarrassing yourself, and Digg.
      • magic6435, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1o yea the democrats are sooooooooo much better on Oil....
    • Fubarepublic, on 06/28/2008, -3/+12[English accent]
      Yes Minister?
      P1: They have found a way to make energy, lots of energy using the sun and vacant desolate sands in the desert.

      P2: That will make out retirement saving in big oil shares crash won't it?
      P1: Yes!! Perhaps we should call a moratorium on Solar power in desserts until we can assess any environmental impact they might have after all, those hippies have been sticking it to my super account for years with similar studies on pristine coral reefs and fragile woodlands.
      P2: Brilliant! I will call the Environment minister and tell him the good news.
    • LenBaird, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Yes. And their paid lapdogs, our government . If you pay attention, and keep this in mind, you'll see many things get road-blocked that are good for the people. Pretty soon you'll realize that we pay taxes, and elect leaders who immediately start working for things that directly harm us... and directly help their paid sponsors- corporations.
      Try looking at the news for a week with the assumption that our government now works against us and our freedoms. Just do it as an experiment. See if a whole range of actions they take make more sense.
    • fatjoe, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7apparently the solar panels are stealing all the sun. it's killing the wildlife!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • bigsteve3OOO, on 06/28/2008, -6/+0nope it the hippies
      they want everyone except them of course to use zero resources. its not really about the environment its about class structure. you got more than they want you to have.
    • Liability, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2
      Ch- ch- ch- cha-ching!
    • Jones82, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4"Do I smell Big Oil?"

      Sorry, that was me
    • Johneeeee, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2During this period, they're going to be doing studies on the impact that solar power plants have on desert habitat and wildlife.

      Try actually reading the story instead of clinging to your insane "Green" stupidity.

      One set of enviormental wack jobs at war with the other set is the problem here not any of the mythological Bogey men of the Eco freak bigots.
    • sarchosis, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1That's probably a tumor
    • nanobyte1111, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Close!!! Its called Big Energy! Nuclear Power Plants probably mad.
    • mal1964, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1"During work on the PEIS, the BLM will focus attention on the 125 applications already received for rights-of-way for solar energy development, while deferring new applications until after completion of the PEIS. The 125 existing applications are for land covering almost one million acres and with the potential to generate 70 billion watts of electricity, or enough to power 20 million average American homes."
      http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2008/may ...
  • stephenmeb, on 06/28/2008, -2/+11I hope somehow this is wrong.
    • Necoras, on 06/28/2008, -4/+8The point of environmentalism is not to save the environment; it is to put humans back into mud huts, dying at 40. This is why you have "environmental impact studies" which delay the installation of solar power plants, or commuter trains like the one they're trying to put in near me (Dallas TX). These studies delay the beneficial impacts of technologies with increased efficiencies by years for no good reason. Certainly impact should be studied, but what do we do when the studies make the problem worse by delaying the good that will be done by half a decade or more?
      • Twenty, on 06/28/2008, -3/+1I don't understand humanity's desperate thirst of blind advancement and growth. As if we'll get anywhere. It just gets more money for the greedy, and, at a disproportionately slower rate, nets more knowledge and understanding for an even smaller sect.
        Other than that, I could see a few downsides to solar farms. The most obvious one is that the panels would block out the sun, then there's the power lines all over the place, and the initial construction. All that could certainly disrupt the desert ecosystems. Still definitely cleaner than starting up exploratory drilling everywhere we can get a foot in the door, with reckless abandon even. I have heard drilling in ANWR talked about too often as a quick-fix over the past few years and I'm ***** sick of it.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1I can't believe you got dugg up for such an ignorant and stupid statement.

        This site is getting dumber and dumber everyday. No I won't argue. Might as well bark at you.

        Bark.

      • macweirdo42, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Where'd you get this idea? The point of environmentalism is so that we don't do something stupid and wipe ourselves out. Sod the Earth, it's us that are affected the most by our irresponsibility and our pollution.
      • gavintlgold, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1THAT is why Environmentalism should not be called that, but rather Sustainability. Environmentalism really makes it sound as if it has nothing to do with humans, or perhaps a negative effect on humans. In truth, environmentalists are trying to save the entire environment, including what humans need to *survive*, not just the environment that is not considered to 'belong' to humans. Remember, humans are animals too.

        Sustainability is a much more positive term, and more accurate. People who work for this goal are not trying to make it harder for humans to live, but rather make it *possible* to sustain all life (including humans) longer on earth. Currently, our energy use is way too high, and nowhere near sustainable. We need to change that, and fast. We can't just save ourselves, because we depend on other animals and plants to survive.

        /end rant
    • koko775, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Yeah, hopefully the 'two years' will magically become 'six months', if we're lucky.
  • iching, on 06/28/2008, -12/+126New Bush Directives Exempt Oil & Gas from Environmental Impact on BLM lands

    06/15/2008 Denver Post

    Bush prepares parting shots on National Forests, Parks and BLM lands

    The Bush administration is pressing in its waning months in office to implement a spate of rule and policy changes that could reshape the face of the West.

    The changes at the federal Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would open tracts to development while removing protections for land and species.




    The most visible of the Bush administration moves in Colorado was the BLM's decision last week to open 52,000 acres of the Roan Plateau to oil and gas leasing. The lease sale is scheduled for August.
    Among other actions are:

    • The issuance of a new BLM handbook on implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which exempts some drilling, logging and mining activities from environmental review.

    • A commitment by the BLM's Utah office to issue six resource-management plans this summer that will set the stage to offer almost 9 million acres for oil and gas leases.

    • Revisions of the BLM's manual on threatened and endangered species that would remove state-designated species from protection on BLM land. Among the species losing protection in Colorado would be the kit fox and boreal toad.

    • New National Forest Management Act regulations, filed April 21, that would remove protecting species on national forest land as a management goal and loosen controls on logging.

    • A commitment by the BLM to issue proposed oil-shale- leasing rules this summer — even though Congress has prohibited the bureau's spending money on issuing final rules.

    • An effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue by December its final rule on whether to protect the greater sage grouse — even though in a court settlement the agency had agreed to issue it in 2009.

    • The granting by the BLM of "categorical exemptions" created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act to spare drilling operations from environmental reviews in areas where drilling has already taken place.
    In each of the cases, a succeeding presidential administration could reverse policies and rules — though it might take time.

    "Virtually nothing is undoable," said Trent Orr, an attorney with Earthjustice, an advocacy law firm that has sued to block the Forest Service management rules.

    http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_9589 ...


    ITS ALL ABOUT THE OIL AND GAS
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand- ...
    • richito, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Thank you for posting this news listing of facts and inevitable acts of devastation against our environment. It's great to read useful comments that add rational thought to this digg. With that though, I have to express outrage and contempt for this current administration: what a bunch of douchebags, how did the majority of us give them a second term of this *****? there. had to do it. thanks again.
  • sk11, on 06/28/2008, -10/+208Right, so, allowing ecologically rich environments to being raped senseless by the oil and gas industry: a-ok. But, opening solar plants in deserts: OMG, environmentally unthinkable!

    Satan's ***** must be bloody sore from the 24/7 bukake fest that is Washington D.C..
    • Majorkerina, on 06/28/2008, -3/+32Dugg up for random, appropriate use of "bukake"
    • Yookji, on 06/28/2008, -6/+9Offshore oil rigs don't harm the environment, in fact they provide an artificial reef. Drilling on land has minimal impact on land use when compared to solar power, which by its very nature requires loads of land. Now, I don't agree with this sort of solar power regulation (or oil and gas regulation for that matter), but you're completely wrong when you say that environments are raped by the oil and gas industry.
      • crzdmn, on 06/28/2008, -2/+6There is a bit more impact on the environment from start to end of the oil to use process than the solar power process.

        Not to mention one only affects WHERE IT IS there other screws us all, we share the same air.
      • Twenty, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4Actually I think the part that angers me most is that solar is cleaner energy (an understatement). There is little comparison between the effects of new drilling or new solar plants to long-term global warming (which is happening).
      • sk11, on 06/28/2008, -0/+7Yes, why of course, burning coal, oil and gas releases happy rainbow smoke, spreading love and peace. Just like smoking tobacco goodness makes people healthier, more youthful and smarter.

        /50's style propaganda
      • Liability, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1
        Coal Bed Methane hi how are you?
      • kublerross, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4wow the scary part is that it seems you actually believe what you say.
      • macweirdo42, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Go for a swim at Corpus Christi. When you come out of the water covered in black gunk, then you can come back and talk to me about how clean off-shore drilling is. Believe me, I've been there, done that - it's absolutely disgusting.
    • Xalorous, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Also, it should be noted that desert ecosystems are more fragile than woodland, mountain or ocean ones.
      • sodade, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I live in New Mexico. While some parts of the state are incredibly nice, there are vast swaths of ***** land that offer no better use than solar energy. The impact on some acres of ***** land is not as important as the long term positive impact.

        The way I see it, this is govt manipulation to ***** all of the solar players who are stepping up to the plate and assuming all this risk to bring us a better way. Putting them on hold for two years, will ***** these pioneers and then watch the oil companies diversify into solar. Everyone involved in energy policy for the last 8 years needs to have their assets frozen immediately - that includes the Bush family...
    • KingGorilla, on 06/28/2008, -0/+5What a colorful way of putting it
    • kleezy, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Lol. I read that as "bloody and sore".
    • Johneeeee, on 06/28/2008, -5/+1Read the story moron. You Eco bigots are so totally clueless. YOUR OWN "envirmoental" legislation requires this. No evil plot, not bogey men, just stupid over regulation and 30 years of insanely ignore policy pushing "conservation not consumption" dogmas
      • sk11, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Oh the ***** irony, your criticism coupled with "envirmoental" prove one: you're a moron and two: you're a ***** hypocrite. As for the inane gibberish vaguely eluding to "eco bigots" being responsible for this legislation:

        The Bureau of Land Management is under the Department of the Interior, which, in turn, is under the executive branch and not Congress.

        They have the ability to decide these things and could have allowed it to progress IF THEY WANTED TO.
      • Overgrown, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0which really makes this even more strange, right?

        right.
    • Overgrown, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0I agree except were the ones taking the pounding. yes it hurts. i said no.
  • johndi, on 06/28/2008, -1/+33American politicians don't want solutions. They want issues to fight over so they can "prove" how different they are. When was the last time our federal government actually did something useful?
    • omeomi, on 06/28/2008, -0/+12The aqueducts.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -5/+2They raised the minimum wage in 2007. Other than that, the Republicans have been in charge since 1994, so....
      • Overgrown, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Since you must not be aware, the democrats are in controll of conress right this very minute.

        and since...Tell me then....

        what group of people other than teenagers who still live at home... or people who dont have actual bills to pay like a mortgage etc, can live off of minimum wage or even support a family? No one can support a family from earning only minimum wage. our economy, taxes and governments will not allow that.

        the minimum wage is a scam. it is not helpful to those who earn it or those who are FORCED to pay it.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3These aren't politicians. They're the BLM, an agency of bureaucrats handpicked by George W. Bush.
      • johndi, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3You're splitting hairs. The handpicked cronies of elected politicians do their bidding or get the axe. True, they are not elected politicians, but these are not just functionary bureaucrats. They are very much involved in influencing and creating public policy. That does indeed make them politicians.
    • Overgrown, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0I only agree with the last sentance...

      When was the last time our federal government actually did something useful?


      im adding another question...

      When will the American poeple wake UP out of this state of unconsienceness and stop trusting the present government and DO something about this?

      The government was NOT placed here to fix all of our problems. now since we somehow have given them this authority... LOOK AT THE DAMAGE THEY HAVE DONE!
  • mecharabbit, on 06/28/2008, -5/+21And yet the BLM doesn't have any inclination toward forbidding oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? WTF?
    • jerrycurley, on 06/28/2008, -3/+2Because the studies on that have already shown the ecological impact to be minimal, *****.
    • Johneeeee, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Because we all ready drill there and all the environmental studies required by Environmental laws have been done. This is what I love about the "Greens" you all are so arrogantly stupid. You are all so convince of your own infallibility while know absolutely nothing about this topic.
      • bruce86, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2I don't want to be difficult, just informed, can help me find these environmental studies, I can't for the life of me find them.
      • mecharabbit, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2Environmental studies or not, it sets a bad precedent for allowing commercial activities on land designated for wildlife habitats, just for an 11 month (at best) supply of oil.
        Look, I know you guys probably feel outnumbered and a little defensive amongst the left-leaning majority of Diggers, but you both could stand to be a little more civil. If you were talking to me face-to- face, you probably wouldn't be so inclined to call me an "*****" and "arrogantly stupid". People who get to know me and do not judge me based on my stances on environmental issues know that I am neither.
  • gnotDigger, on 06/28/2008, -1/+12I hope this is a joke....
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/28/2008, -0/+8Look, it's an Onion article... oh wait...
  • bryanws, on 06/28/2008, -4/+26Environmental impact on deserts?! Really? What's the worse these things can do? Give lizards something other than a rock to crawl under when it gets too hot?
    • Ryan166, on 06/28/2008, -17/+6Liberals found ways not to drill in ANWR (caribou). And now they are doing the same here in the American Southwest (lizards).
      • greenm1981, on 06/28/2008, -4/+5If there was anything worth drilling in ANWR, it would be producing oil by now. There is no force more awesome in this universe than the oil and gas lobby. Sorry, God has to pay $4.65 a gallon, too.
      • TopherT, on 06/28/2008, -3/+3*****. This is oil and gas money.
      • MortalynFlux, on 06/28/2008, -3/+7Uh, excuse me, but the BLM has been hand appointed by failed oilsman George Dubya Bush. They have no problem leasing land for oil wells, including forests and coastland. They are doing this to sabotage green energy. Keep in mind that the people closest to Bush and who are currently in power in the White House come from the oil industry. That includes secretary of state C. Rice. This goes all the way down the government ladder.

        Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt.
      • notoneofus, on 06/28/2008, -3/+5@greenm1981: If there is a God, I doubt he's American. Or at least he doesn't admit it when he travels.
  • koft, on 06/28/2008, -2/+18I think the desert lizards would appreciate the shade from the solar panels myself.... *****, this could promote wildlife in the long run.
    • Johneeeee, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Just like the pipelines in Alaska do the caribou. But of course our green lunatic cannot be bothered with facts, they have their green religion that requires absolute subservience by them to their political masters dogmas
  • cl2yp71c, on 06/28/2008, -5/+89OH NOEZ THE SUN IS GOING TO BE DEPLETED!


    ....in a few billion years.
    • cyborg, on 06/28/2008, -0/+14You should read the Final Question by Isaac Asimov
    • borez, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2But we've already reached Peak Sun, I read about it on the internet.
  • MasterThief117, on 06/28/2008, -13/+4The US is making like communists and stalin'
  • Khast, on 06/28/2008, -8/+93Yes, let's hold up on Solar power, because we don't know what the wildlife impact will be.....but let's go ahead and start drilling Alaska...

    Brilliant!
  • bigp3rm, on 06/28/2008, -3/+22When will this madness end.
    • MisterWormwood, on 06/28/2008, -2/+0Under five months, if enough people are fed up with this crap.
    • Johneeeee, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1When you green clowns stop mindlessly clinging to your green religion and start listening to the facts.
      • peacepeot67, on 06/29/2008, -0/+0When the Oily Barons stop listening to their cash registers.
  • TwoSlick, on 06/28/2008, -20/+44So let me get this straight. You people are freaking out that the Bureau of Land Management wants to see how spreading solar panels to cover HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of square feet of land will impact wildlife. At the same time, you think that drilling for oil in only one tenth of one percent of ANWR is a travesty.

    Amazing.
    • MrWhite7, on 06/28/2008, -4/+25You'll recognize a double standard and you'll like it.
    • gdehms, on 06/28/2008, -7/+8But it's clean energy! It doesn't matter how much room it takes up!
      • Xalorous, on 06/28/2008, -2/+6There is more to being environmentally safe than not producing air pollution. Desert ecologies are fragile and solar installations are not necessarily constructed in an ecologically friendly way. Keep in mind that these panels have to be supported on the ground, and there are power cabling and service roads and control wiring.

        Personally, I believe solar is the best we can do currently, but we have to be careful of the habitats where they're built.
    • keviniskool, on 06/28/2008, -8/+17It's the desert. Whatever animals would lose to solar panels could be found in an identical location right next to them. A blank space is still a blank space no matter how far you travel.
      • tdp301, on 06/28/2008, -2/+10As opposed to tundra?
      • Xalorous, on 06/28/2008, -0/+10Deserts are not blank spaces. How about this. Your home/apartment is like any other. We'll pave over your entire neighborhood and you can set up a new apartment someplace else. Oh, yeah, all your stuff stays in the apartment when it gets bulldozed and paved over.
    • Ryan166, on 06/28/2008, -14/+14Stop being logical, and start blaming "BIG OIL".
    • staxofmax, on 06/28/2008, -5/+7If anything, the sheer amount of scrutiny oil and gas companies would be under if they were allowed to operate in ANWR is a pretty compelling reason to allow for drilling. Could you imagine the political and legal fallout that would happen should there be some sort of ecological catastrophe due to a pipeline burst or whatnot? Oil companies could not afford to mess up.

      As much as it is discouraging to see delays in solar power development, it isn't exactly a bad thing that power companies are going to be under some scrutiny before being allowed to pave over thousands of square miles of desert with glass and silicone wafers.
      • pagno, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4Yeah, just like with the Exxon Valdez slipup. They couldnt possibly afford another $500mil, 20yrs after the fact.
      • dood, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1The primary problem I see with drilling in ANWR, other than the obvious environmental impact (even if the studies say it would be low) is the small amount of oil it would provide the US market. Reports I'm looking at say it would reduce the cost of oil about 75 cents per barrel. That's the natural price shift over a couple days. What's the point?
    • pacookie, on 06/28/2008, -4/+4drilling in alaska does nothing for our oil reserves. we hold 3% of the worlds oil in alaska, but currently use 27% of the worlds oil production EVERY YEAR. the reserves we have, even if we kept them for only the US use, would do almost nothing to significantly reduce prices (and the time it would take us to setup drilling in alaska would be about the same time that it would take for this study to be completed anyway). Solar power, and an investment in the future alt. energies, is the only viable long term solution. stop thinking with your car.
    • bashar2, on 06/28/2008, -2/+4one tenth of one percent of ANWR is hundreds of thousands of square feet of land
    • MrSlumberjack, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2If it were to have any impact, the biggest would be the surface albedo (ratio of reflected radiation to absorbed radiation), slightly cooling the affected region of the desert climate... and even accounting for that, our solar plants would be a tiny spec in the desert.
  • T8erT0T, on 06/28/2008, -4/+35Lol, a moratorium of two years on solar plants to study their impact. Yet, has there been a moratorium called on trash incinerators? Or nuclear waste treatment sites? This is *****-nutty.
    • OutLawSuit, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3Well people bitch about wind turbines killing birds so I don't see this as all that different. "You're blinding all the birds with those solar panels!"
    • jerrycurley, on 06/28/2008, -4/+3Except, you stupid simple minded *****, there WERE Studies done on those things you mentioned. And while those studies were being done, there WAS a moratorium on those things.

      So, to answer your asinine questions...yes to both.
  • l800LEMMINGS, on 06/28/2008, -1/+16This is ***** I hope the solar companies fight this tooth and nail as will the consumers by their side
  • ethornquist, on 06/28/2008, -4/+9Actually, it's all about the Benjamins. Never thought I'd say this, but Puff Daddy was right.
    • pagno, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3I think he goes by P Diddy now, or some *****. The "P" stands for "pedophile".
      • ethornquist, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1I thought that was Prince, not Diddy.
  • STPZ, on 06/28/2008, -2/+2Oh what an appropriate time. Wouldn't want the little desert critters to be able to find some shade.
  • GregFD3S, on 06/28/2008, -7/+19Note: The U.S. is not just slow to adapt to new environmental circumstances, the government is just protecting their own interests, oil.
  • tnoy, on 06/28/2008, -8/+3Awesome, another great example of government regulation at its best.
    • DavidGX, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2"Awesome, another great example of republican controlled, big oil funded government at its best."

      Fixed that for you.
  • wissler, on 06/28/2008, -4/+6Hahaha--statists foiling statists! If you don't readily see the poetic irony in this then I'm talking about you!
  • aresef, on 06/28/2008, -7/+30Somewhere an Exxon exec is lighting a cigar with some $100 bills.
    • itsthebrod, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1And you could be too, if you were smart and bought some Exxon stock.
  • pradaaddict, on 06/28/2008, -2/+49I was disappointed to find that this was not a link to The Onion
  • tattertech, on 06/28/2008, -1/+9There's definitely problems with it the other way. But I suspect most people underestimate just how complicated the desert ecosystem is. Environmental impacts are significant on ANY ecosystem - it just happens that the desert doesn't have TOO many cute and snuggly animals so everyone can get up in arms about anything affecting them - as long as there are no baby seals or other cute animals.
    • regeya, on 06/28/2008, -2/+1I'm fairly certain there will be a negative environmental impact if the power starts failing AFTER massive rate hikes...

      If we keep this up, it's coming. Just be ready for the negative environmental impact of rioting. It will be far worse than the impact of a solar power plant.
      • Naieve, on 06/28/2008, -0/+2power won't start failing.

        plenty of coal.
  • ktarr, on 06/28/2008, -6/+4RUFUKINKIIDNME
  • melfster, on 06/28/2008, -4/+19Remember... This is the Bush Administration. They are hand in hand with the Oil Industry they want to do all they can to stop any new renewable resources.
  • blackhappy, on 06/28/2008, -2/+6Strangely I think this is something both Dems and Reps can both find ridiculous!
    • zacharytelschow, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Wrong. The Dems are owned by the alarmist environmentalists, as you can clearly see from their past voting records. I guarantee the majority of Dems in Congress have no problem with this.
  • jitjit, on 06/28/2008, -3/+5As usual the big corporations control everything
  • Ryan166, on 06/28/2008, -14/+6What doesn't "BIG OIL!!!" get blamed for?
    • DavidGX, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Your stupidity. We'll blame that one on your mother.
  • Ev3nt372, on 06/28/2008, -0/+51How about just build them raised over the huge highways, parking lots, or any other overly asphalted areas? The existing structures allow for easy maintenance, you are covering drivers from the direct noon day sun so they use their ACs less, and the customers for the electricity produced will be much closer thus requiring less infrastructure to hook it up to the rest of the grid.
    • QuintaEssentia, on 06/28/2008, -0/+11Agreed, if more buildings and homes had their own Solar panels, perhaps we wouldn't need as many solar plants. I'm sure we have more than enough developed land to produce enough electricity for most of our needs.
    • hibbity123, on 06/28/2008, -2/+9thats a good idea!!! Ev3nt372 is a ***** genoius
      • greenm1981, on 06/28/2008, -0/+9Genius.
      • Mpwns, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2no its not genius. its common sense, but when it comes to the consumer it means it would also cost less hell they could do that and then just tax us for keeping it up and running and it means our government controls it, and no one really makes any money off it.
      • Jones82, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2In this country common sense is genius
    • MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3This is an *excellent* idea. You would "re-use" land that is already covered in asphalt, providing some protection for the drivers while using the sun to power existing infrastructure (gas stations, lights).
      Quick, get a patent on this before the big bad oil guys do it! :)
    • solarweasel, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4I think this sort of integration of solar technology is in future plans, however they are not yet done advancing/finalizing thin-film technologies which will allow integration of solar into skyscraper windows, roof-materials, and maybe even paint of all things.
    • rlh1, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1Best Idea I've read on Digg....
    • itsthebrod, on 06/28/2008, -0/+1This is starting to remind me of the Simpsons episode when Burns builds a huge device and blocks out the sun. After all, that's what is going to happen if we start covering all the land we drive on and use with solar panels.
    • andyd273, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Another good thing about this idea is that power lines run along roads, so hooking the solar panels into the power grid will be childsplay.
      The only expensive parts will be the structures to hold the solar panels up above the roads that high.
      It's a lot more metal to hold them 14-20 feet above the freeway for the big rigs to pass under than it is to hold them 3 feet above the desert, or however high they put them.
      Then they will need to be a lot more structurally sound, because if a solar panel falls on a lizard in the desert does anyone hear it? But if a solar panel falls on a minivan on the freeway it'll get reported around the world, 24 hours a day, for a week. At least.
  • themonkman, on 06/28/2008, -2/+3What needs to happen is that we absolutely need to write and call to our representatives to voice our opposition to these moratoriums, and to demand the development of government owned land to be used for solar energy generation. There is no doubt that big oil is behind the lobbying behind this moratorium.
  • whitecranberry, on 06/28/2008, -7/+11HAHAHA You Americans are soo *****.. GLWT
    • pagno, on 06/28/2008, -4/+1*****!
    • wittbrij, on 06/28/2008, -3/+4um... you live on this planet, so you're ***** too. And another ***** you for being a douche anti-American prick. We probably, a) gave you the balls to defeat your monarch, b) Saved your ass from zeGermans; c) You listen/watch our music/film/tv. d) and your probably running mac OS or Windows on a machine, be-it created and assembled in a 3rd world country but it was developed/designed/and profitable her it the states...
    • PawFox, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4ugh - here we go again
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 06/28/2008, -1/+14What critter would not love some free shade?
  • rationalbeats, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3I see the point, and i read a much better article about this on the BBC.

    They are still going to go and process the 110 permits they received this year, and will put a hold to make sure they don't ***** up the environment for two years. In the mean time development will proceed on the 110 permits already submitted.

    Still the fact they still give permits to coal miners in the Appalachians to saw off the top of mountains insane.
  • SundayBrunch, on 06/28/2008, -3/+2tarantulas and snakes may get eye burn from all that sunlight reflection in their face. Poor, furry tarantulas. If the sitiuation was reversed, tarantulas and black widows would protect you, they're furry, how bad could they possibly be.
  • diggthis123, on 06/28/2008, -1/+10They couldn't have done their "investigative research" 8 years ago? By now we could have been less dependent on oil.
  • QuickHonda, on 06/28/2008, -1/+2WTF! nuff said
  • mcnut77, on 06/28/2008, -12/+1So, if you guys have ever gone up to the desert, our genius eco-friendly dimwhits have decided the best place to build these solar power plants are on places that include dry lake beds. Now, I don't know about you guys, but the word "lake bed" means that at some point, it's wet, and your big old solar collectors will need lots of digging and oil, so they're firmly planted in the ground. Now, personally, renewable energy sources are trash, cause they are a fad until some real person thinks about what it actually takes to put these together. Nuclear power is the only real way to go, but you hippies are so afraid of it that we'll use "clean" energy sources that will only pollute the few beautiful places left in this country.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3Study the effects of wildlife where you throw coal and nuclear power plan waste at. I bet there won't be much there. If we're not going Solar soon, we'll have to go nuclear for our nation's energy needs. When we get hydrogen or plugin hybrid cars, we'll have to charge them off the grid which will put a big load on it. We need a large boost to the nations grid because it will help do things like lower the costs in everything we buy. Lowering the price of things we buy will help the environment in a big way, but it is hard to measure.
  • cklein121, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3Studies on the impact on the desert habitat? What a lame excuse for: we want to develop and make money.
  • Tyrghast, on 06/28/2008, -1/+8No one likes deserts anyway, that's why they are deserted.
  • jedikilla1, on 06/28/2008, -1/+3What is this MADNESS?
  • Typhoon2009, on 06/28/2008, -5/+22***** you congress
    ***** you congress
    ***** you congress
    ***** you congress
    ***** you congress
    ***** you congress
    ***** you congress
    • MortalynFlux, on 06/28/2008, -1/+18Try the Bureau of Land Management, hand appointed by George Bush to plow over public lands to drill for oil.
    • ZenMojo, on 06/28/2008, -0/+4The BLM is an agency. Congress has nothing to do with it.
      • Akairenn, on 06/28/2008, -0/+0Congress has everything to do with how our country is run; or say, rather, they should have everything to do with it.

        Unfortunately, the minds of our inglorious legislature are taken up with more heady matters, such as steroids and baseball.

        Bread and ***** circuses.
    • Bologner, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3That's catchy. It has a certain ring to it.
  • pakakapa, on 06/28/2008, -2/+10wtf, thought this was from the onion...
    • Mpwns, on 06/28/2008, -0/+3i don't think they can top this if they did a story similar.
  • ryancalderoni, on 06/28/2008, -3/+2Smart to test, more surface area means more reflected and gathered heat. Once it get's sizable enough, it can make a very big impact on weather. We use oil in the mean time, we cannot afford to do anything else yet. Once it is cheaper to do solar power, then it will happen. But only after the price of oil get's high enough. So stop complaining about the gas and hope that it sky rockets past the price of solar, because then we will switch!
    • behavedave, on 06/28/2008, -1/+1Did you read the article?

      People are trying to build solar plants already irrespective of what you think!
    • Overgrown, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0This is bogus propaganda that you spew from your brain. You dont actually believe this thought you placed on the internent do you? I hope not.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 06/28/2008, -1/+4Write your congressmen. I need to find the link to see who voted on this stuff.
  • MortalynFlux, on 06/28/2008, -1/+17So the Bureau of Land Management has no problem allowing oil drilling. The federal government bypassed EPA regulations and trampled over people's backyards to build the border fence.

    Yet they put a freeze on solar power plants, which will cause many small alternative energy companies to go bankrupt. The border fence is not going to solve our energy and global warming problem. Solar energy will be part of the solution. But it's being nailed to the ground.

    What is wrong with this government?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.