If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   Federal government attempts to auction "solar rights," with predictable results   (denverpost.com) divider line 70
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

10454 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2013 at 4:18 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-24 04:23:13 PM
"We are going to have to regroup and figure out what didn't work," said Maryanne Kurtinaitis, renewable-energy program manager in the BLM's Colorado office.

I'm gonna go ahead and bet that the solution is more government.  Just like everything else.
 
2013-10-24 04:23:48 PM
not exactly accurate subby...gotta read AND understand the effing article these days.
 
2013-10-24 04:26:16 PM
Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.
 
2013-10-24 04:29:25 PM
Come on, people. This is quality surface area. In some places you'd pay double or triple what we're asking for this particular plane of area exposed to the sun.
 
2013-10-24 04:29:55 PM
metrouk2.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-24 04:32:10 PM
So can I buy the solar energy rights to the land and then sue because all those federally owned trees are stealing it?
 
2013-10-24 04:33:02 PM

Treygreen13: Come on, people. This is quality surface area. In some places you'd pay double or triple what we're asking for this particular plane of area exposed to the sun.


Well, sure, but in this particular area there really isn't a lot of demand. I can give give you $300.
 
2013-10-24 04:33:53 PM
How about nope, BLM. Is nope good with you? We're going to go with nope.
 
2013-10-24 04:34:42 PM
If the federal government was serious about restricting solar power, they would be packing up Indians in Fema trailers and taking them out of the stinking desert already.
 
2013-10-24 04:36:08 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: So can I buy the solar energy rights to the land and then sue because all those federally owned trees are stealing it?


Sue the folks across the street who have solar panels and/or curtains pointed toward your panels collecting/blocking that reflected light!
 
2013-10-24 04:36:51 PM
If they guaranteed no impediments, there would be investors.
 
2013-10-24 04:38:16 PM
Naw, you can only go there at night.
 
2013-10-24 04:41:53 PM

Maud Dib: Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.


282 days of sunshine a year.  65 days a year with measurable precipitation (and they are typically, as you note, the late Spring monsoons, which last for like an hour or so).

Good place for solar.
 
2013-10-24 04:41:57 PM
Just like cattle grazing rights, right?
MORONS.
Who comes up with this nonsense?
 
2013-10-24 04:50:04 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Just like cattle grazing rights, right?
MORONS.
Who comes up with this nonsense?


Is that a Rain-Barrel you have there?
 
2013-10-24 04:52:03 PM

paygun: "We are going to have to regroup and figure out what didn't work," said Maryanne Kurtinaitis, renewable-energy program manager in the BLM's Colorado office.

I'm gonna go ahead and bet that the solution is more government.  Just like everything else.


Yawn
 
2013-10-24 04:56:02 PM
Sure you can buy the rights to the land..but good luck being able to build without some special interest group going nut job and protesting it.
 
2013-10-24 04:56:20 PM
Land rights for mining, that I understand, but solar rights,  that's about as asinine as selling wind rights... The whole idea blows...
 
2013-10-24 05:04:45 PM

pkrzycki: Land rights for mining, that I understand, but solar rights,  that's about as asinine as selling wind rights... The whole idea blows...


www.cineol.net

Linus Caldwell: (Mr. Yen) owns all of the air south of Beijing.
Abigail Sponder: (disbelieving). The air?
Linus Caldwell: Let me put it to you this way: try building something taller than three stories in the Tiangjin province, and see if his name comes up.
 
2013-10-24 05:09:59 PM
Next up, Oxygen rights in the atmosphere.  And they'll throw in the nitrogen for free!
 
2013-10-24 05:14:53 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sure you can buy the rights to the land..but good luck being able to build without some special interest group going nut job and protesting it.


This is what held them up more than anything else.  This being federal land, the nuts will be harassing you for years.  The ultra right wing "we don't like solar" morons, or the super left wing "any form of energy is bad, even solar and wind" folks.  The lawsuits will keep you busy for 5 years before you could install the first panel.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-24 05:19:26 PM
The San Luis Valley sites did have access to transmission, and the minimum bid prices for the parcels ranged from about $3,350 an acre to $4,280 - low prices, Borngrebe said.

That sounds like a high price to me, considering the desolate location. Apparently bidders agreed.
 
2013-10-24 05:20:09 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sure you can buy the rights to the land..but good luck being able to build without some special interest group going nut job and protesting it.


Does anyone around here read the article before posting any more?
 
2013-10-24 05:22:12 PM
Answer is simple Obamapower. JUst get men with guns to force people to use it.
 
2013-10-24 05:23:23 PM

Pincy: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sure you can buy the rights to the land..but good luck being able to build without some special interest group going nut job and protesting it.

Does anyone around here read the article before posting any more?


We certainly couldn't do it any less.
 
2013-10-24 05:25:55 PM

Pincy: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sure you can buy the rights to the land..but good luck being able to build without some special interest group going nut job and protesting it.

Does anyone around here read the article before posting any more?


What do you mean "any more"?
 
2013-10-24 05:27:57 PM
Tax incentives, no-interest government loans, subsidies and mandatory green energy portfolios to the rescue.
 
2013-10-24 05:29:28 PM
DAMMIT, COHAGEN
 
2013-10-24 05:29:55 PM
I bought the Sun.
 
2013-10-24 05:32:11 PM

Pincy: Random Anonymous Blackmail: Sure you can buy the rights to the land..but good luck being able to build without some special interest group going nut job and protesting it.

Does anyone around here read the article before posting any more?


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-24 05:35:13 PM
sure, "Watch me make this pencil disappear . . ."

www.moviequotesandmore.com

about what I would do if offered, "The Sunlight to bid on"
DNRFA
 
2013-10-24 05:38:16 PM

lockers: How about nope, BLM. Is nope good with you? We're going to go with nope.


Because there's no future in renewable energy, amirite?
 
2013-10-24 05:38:28 PM

Maud Dib: Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.


Other than the 300 sunny days a year.  And keeping snow off of a steeply sloped, black surface is easier than you might think.  My parents use solar to heat their house in Colorado and getting the snow off of the panels is one thing they never have to worry about, if you don't mind being woken by an avalanche shortly after sunrise.

See that that valley below the center of Colorado, marked in red to indicate optimum solar availability?  That's the area they're talking about:

www.c2es.org
 
2013-10-24 05:40:00 PM

AliceBToklasLives: Maud Dib: Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.

282 days of sunshine a year.  65 days a year with measurable precipitation (and they are typically, as you note, the late Spring monsoons, which last for like an hour or so).

Good place for solar.


But solar developers will spend their money developing the best places first.  Once this good place becomes the best due to development taking up better spots, then development will occur.
 
2013-10-24 05:41:43 PM
If I'm gonna build a solar panner whatsit, I'm going to build it in a place where it never snows and where I can get the maximum number of daylight hours every year.  That means I'm gonna build as far south as possible, not in Colorado.  There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.
 
2013-10-24 05:52:15 PM

jtown: There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.


Well, some of Texas.

smokeys-trail.com
 
2013-10-24 05:55:09 PM

Treygreen13: jtown: There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Well, some of Texas.

[smokeys-trail.com image 624x417]


That graphic shows killer events, not total events.  It therefore is weighted too far east near more densely populated areas.  For building solar installations you want to look at total events whether killer or not.
 
2013-10-24 06:01:43 PM

pkrzycki: Land rights for mining, that I understand, but solar rights,  that's about as asinine as selling wind rights... The whole idea blows...


You understand it is a manner of 'renting' the land for a specific purpose, and restricting what they do on the land only to a certain activity.  They would be able to go in, install the panels, connecting wiring and only return for maintenance reasons.  The government would also be able to require the panels to be at a certain height if that would allow the wild life to go on without issue.  It's like you own a house on a lake with a private boat ramp, and you sell boat ramp rights to an avid fisher.  You don't own the lake, but for a price you can control who uses it from your property.
 
2013-10-24 06:04:03 PM

Treygreen13: jtown: There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Well, some of Texas.

[smokeys-trail.com image 624x417]


Exactly.  That nub under New Mexico is perfect.  That nub is bigger than a lot of states and countries.  :)
 
2013-10-24 06:05:46 PM

Teufel Ritter: Treygreen13: jtown: There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Well, some of Texas.

[smokeys-trail.com image 624x417]

That graphic shows killer events, not total events.  It therefore is weighted too far east near more densely populated areas.  For building solar installations you want to look at total events whether killer or not.


*sigh*
Fine.

www.insurancerescue.com
 
2013-10-24 06:10:32 PM

edmo: Treygreen13: Come on, people. This is quality surface area. In some places you'd pay double or triple what we're asking for this particular plane of area exposed to the sun.

Well, sure, but in this particular area there really isn't a lot of demand. I can give give you $300.


Actually, this.  $3350 to $4250 an acre?  $335 to $425 and now we're talking.  Oh, yeah, pre-build the grid tie in - "close by" only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and Thermonuclear weapons.

Then maybe they'll see some bids.
 
2013-10-24 06:10:58 PM
You can't OWN the sun, man.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-24 06:11:07 PM
Treygreen13

The site for your graph implies it's used for insurance risk rating.

In New England the building codes don't even consider those tornado wind speeds. Residential code in Connecticut (when I looked in the mid-1990s) was to withstand barely hurricane force, more or less, with 90+ mph required along Long Island Sound where a hurricane could hit at strength.
 
2013-10-24 06:12:50 PM

Treygreen13: jtown: There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Well, some of Texas.

[smokeys-trail.com image 624x417]


If you look at the map a couple comments above yours, the solar "sweet spot" of Texas just happens to also be the tornado-free corner.
 
2013-10-24 06:13:15 PM

ZAZ: Treygreen13

The site for your graph implies it's used for insurance risk rating.

In New England the building codes don't even consider those tornado wind speeds. Residential code in Connecticut (when I looked in the mid-1990s) was to withstand barely hurricane force, more or less, with 90+ mph required along Long Island Sound where a hurricane could hit at strength.


Someone just said they wanted to go somewhere pretty safe from tornados, like Texas. I grabbed the first chart that worked and now I'm not going to argue residential code compliance. Let's just say don't put anything that you don't want to blow away in Texas.
 
2013-10-24 06:16:01 PM

Teufel Ritter: But solar developers will spend their money developing the best places first. Once this good place becomes the best due to development taking up better spots, then development will occur.


If you look at the map directly above this comment, the San Luis Valley is the one part of Colorado that is as good as Arizona or New Mexico for solar.
 
2013-10-24 06:16:13 PM

Treygreen13: Teufel Ritter: Treygreen13: jtown: There's whole chunks of empty Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where I don't have to worry about snow, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

Well, some of Texas.

[smokeys-trail.com image 624x417]

That graphic shows killer events, not total events.  It therefore is weighted too far east near more densely populated areas.  For building solar installations you want to look at total events whether killer or not.

*sigh*
Fine.

[www.insurancerescue.com image 850x610]


Lol.  My original comment was not meant to imply that I disagreed with yours, just pointing out the issue.  Thanks for finding that additional image, though.
 
2013-10-24 06:18:26 PM

Treygreen13: Come on, people. This is quality surface area. In some places you'd pay double or triple what we're asking for this particular plane of area exposed to the sun.


You're not buying the surface area, you're buying the fact that there's nothing of value underneath it.
 
2013-10-24 06:19:17 PM

flondrix: Teufel Ritter: But solar developers will spend their money developing the best places first. Once this good place becomes the best due to development taking up better spots, then development will occur.

If you look at the map directly above this comment, the San Luis Valley is the one part of Colorado that is as good as Arizona or New Mexico for solar.


No.  It is nearly as good.  Not as good.  There are spots with better weather; once those spots are taken, these will be developed.  It looks like a good spot, just not yet the best one left.
 
2013-10-24 06:30:34 PM
Is there a minimum bid?
 
2013-10-24 06:36:55 PM

Contrabulous Flabtraption: Is there a minimum bid?


"The opening bid will be determined by the minimum bonus bid or the highest sealed bid, whichever is higher. The minimum bonus bid for each parcel is 5% of the rent value of the land for one year ($63 per acre for Saguache and Conejos counties) under the BLM's interim solar rental policy."

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us-hosts-first-aucti on -to-develop-solar-energy-on-public-lands_100013221/#ixzz2igKPRvBu
 
2013-10-24 07:22:25 PM
"It isn't that the wind is blowing, it's what the wind is blowing. If you get hit with a Volvo, it doesn't matter how many pushups you did that morning." "--Ron "Tater Salad" White

One of my favourite jokes of all time.

Look there goes a windmill! Look's like a 65-footer, but it's really hard to tell from a safe distance. It could be the screw from the SS Queen Mary or a lawn ornament.

In the Summer, "leafers" come from LA to see the solar trees shed their panels. California is happy because that kind of dumbassery keeps the population down.
 
2013-10-24 07:42:52 PM
yeah, much of the issues were likely in the fine print.  Access, permits, Endangered Species, NIMBY groups, all might end up costing more than what it is worth.

Kind of like grazing on federal lands.  Most folks think that it is cheap, but when you have to factor in the other 'costs' it is typically not much cheaper than just pasturing your livestock on private land.
 
2013-10-24 07:46:47 PM
I would rather my power producing equipment be on property that i own.
 
2013-10-24 07:55:11 PM

flondrix: Maud Dib: Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.

Other than the 300 sunny days a year.  And keeping snow off of a steeply sloped, black surface is easier than you might think.  My parents use solar to heat their house in Colorado and getting the snow off of the panels is one thing they never have to worry about, if you don't mind being woken by an avalanche shortly after sunrise.

See that that valley below the center of Colorado, marked in red to indicate optimum solar availability?  That's the area they're talking about:

[www.c2es.org image 809x625]


Don't even think about using that prime real estate in southern Nevada or California, though.  The air force doesn't like what those giant fields of collector panels or the wind turbines (for wind power) do to their radars.  If you're within 300 miles of Las Vegas, Edwards AFB, or China Lake, you'll be messing up those precious little radar systems in our modern jets!  And we can't be trying to secure our energy future, when we have to practice bombing brown people, so that we can secure our energy future.
 
2013-10-24 07:55:38 PM

OdradekRex: Next up, Oxygen rights in the atmosphere. And they'll throw in the nitrogen for free!


Already happening: paying to attach carbon atoms on those oxygen atoms. It's as if the carbon cycle did not exist.

Be careful not to attach any oxygen atoms to those free nitrogen atoms!
 
2013-10-24 08:09:10 PM

Treygreen13: Come on, people. This is quality surface area. In some places you'd pay double or triple what we're asking for this particular plane of area exposed to the sun.


Let me call my buddy who is an expert in surface areas.
 
2013-10-24 08:09:28 PM
Shhhh man.

NZ Maori already claimed the foreshore, seabed, are trying for the airwaves and rivers.... Next they'll want the rest of the EM spectrum.
 
2013-10-24 08:11:16 PM

soakitincider: I would rather my power producing equipment be on property that i own.


And you can do that, unless your homeowner's association thinks solar panels look "icky".  Of course, that precludes using that land for farming or having a lawn.  You can, however, put the panels higher up and use the shaded area underneath.  The nice thing about putting the panels out in the middle of a desert somewhere is that they can take up space on cheap land than no one will miss.
 
2013-10-24 08:15:16 PM

rolladuck: flondrix: Maud Dib: Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.

Other than the 300 sunny days a year.  And keeping snow off of a steeply sloped, black surface is easier than you might think.  My parents use solar to heat their house in Colorado and getting the snow off of the panels is one thing they never have to worry about, if you don't mind being woken by an avalanche shortly after sunrise.

See that that valley below the center of Colorado, marked in red to indicate optimum solar availability?  That's the area they're talking about:

[www.c2es.org image 809x625]

Don't even think about using that prime real estate in southern Nevada or California, though.  The air force doesn't like what those giant fields of collector panels or the wind turbines (for wind power) do to their radars.  If you're within 300 miles of Las Vegas, Edwards AFB, or China Lake, you'll be messing up those precious little radar systems in our modern jets!  And we can't be trying to secure our energy future, when we have to practice bombing brown people, so that we can secure our energy future.


Of course, the goal is to use any good solar and wind land that isn't committed to something else, in Nevada AND California AND Arizona AND New Mexico AND Colorado.  I don't know if the Air Force really does have an issue with wind turbines, but I have a hard time imagining what the problem with stationary, low-to-the-ground PV panels would be.
 
2013-10-24 08:26:26 PM

flondrix: soakitincider: I would rather my power producing equipment be on property that i own.

And you can do that, unless your homeowner's association thinks solar panels look "icky".  Of course, that precludes using that land for farming or having a lawn.  You can, however, put the panels higher up and use the shaded area underneath.  The nice thing about putting the panels out in the middle of a desert somewhere is that they can take up space on cheap land than no one will miss.


Except for the three-toed, blue-penised, desert-dwelling ground skink.  It's endangered, don't you know?
 
2013-10-24 08:29:57 PM

flondrix: The nice thing about putting the panels out in the middle of a desert somewhere is that they can take up space on cheap land than no one will miss.


Believe me dude.  There are NIMBYs everywhere these days.
 
2013-10-24 09:01:52 PM

BATMANATEE: [metrouk2.files.wordpress.com image 636x336]


Came for C. Montgomery Burns crossing over into cartoonish super-villany, leaving satisfied.
 
2013-10-24 09:57:56 PM

rolladuck: flondrix: Maud Dib: Snows a lot in the Winter around there. And the Summer monsoons are like clockwork. Not seeing much sense in building solar there.

Other than the 300 sunny days a year.  And keeping snow off of a steeply sloped, black surface is easier than you might think.  My parents use solar to heat their house in Colorado and getting the snow off of the panels is one thing they never have to worry about, if you don't mind being woken by an avalanche shortly after sunrise.

See that that valley below the center of Colorado, marked in red to indicate optimum solar availability?  That's the area they're talking about:

[www.c2es.org image 809x625]

Don't even think about using that prime real estate in southern Nevada or California, though.  The air force doesn't like what those giant fields of collector panels or the wind turbines (for wind power) do to their radars.  If you're within 300 miles of Las Vegas, Edwards AFB, or China Lake, you'll be messing up those precious little radar systems in our modern jets!  And we can't be trying to secure our energy future, when we have to practice bombing brown people, so that we can secure our energy future.


Except for the fact that Nellis and Edwards already have two of the largest solar panel installations in the country.  In fact, Nellis just entered a contract to put up more solar panels this year to try to get their total power usage up to 40% solar.  China Lake is assumed to be putting in large amounts of Solar as well, but all of the construction work is classified.  The panels keep moving through Vegas without a known destination though.
 
2013-10-24 10:24:47 PM
flondrix:   I don't know if the Air Force really does have an issue with wind turbines, but I have a hard time imagining what the problem with stationary, low-to-the-ground PV panels would be.

Reflection maybe?
 
2013-10-24 11:03:09 PM

RastaKins: Already happening: paying to attach carbon atoms on those oxygen atoms.


You're not paying to attach the carbon. You're paying to release the combination back into the atmosphere. If you want to make CO2 for storage or some other use there's no carbon tax to be paid -- you just aren't allowed to treat the atmosphere as your own private fluid trash pile for free.
 
2013-10-24 11:09:37 PM

scandalrag: Except for the fact that Nellis and Edwards already have two of the largest solar panel installations in the country. In fact, Nellis just entered a contract to put up more solar panels this year to try to get their total power usage up to 40% solar. China Lake is assumed to be putting in large amounts of Solar as well, but all of the construction work is classified. The panels keep moving through Vegas without a known destination though.


Yeah, those installations are nowhere near their test ranges, though.  They're practically on the main parts of the bases.  The ranges are pretty far out.  (Except China Lake, but who wants to drive to Ridgecrest, and THEN drive another hour?)
The major problem is with solar panels near where a plane would be using its on-board radar, is that those panels could collect and focus the radar signal, and could possibly determine classified characteristics of the radar system... or so I was told.  I always thought that part made as much sense as the DoD being upset about someone getting classified on their unclassified computers because someone forwarded them an email with wikileaks content on it--it's nonsense, so it's probably spot-on.
As far as the wind farms go, each blade on a wind farm presents a moving feature to the aircraft's radar that is moving at the rotational speed of the tip of the blade.  As you can imagine, that can wreak holy hell during a test and evaluation exercise, which is the primary mission of those desert bases.
Normally, none of it would be an issue, except that there are major transmission line interconnects being built near the few major highways in those parts of the country, and every kilometer from the wind or solar generation plants is another million dollars of startup costs--so they want the plants to be close to the transmission lines, which are near the perimeters of the bases.
It's a ready-made situation for a need for calm and rational leadership.  Meanwhile, Tweedle Dee has the White House and Tweedle Dum has the House of Reps.
<facepalm.jpg>
 
2013-10-24 11:11:07 PM

profplump: You're not paying to attach the carbon. You're paying to release the combination back into the atmosphere. If you want to make CO2 for storage or some other use there's no carbon tax to be paid -- you just aren't allowed to treat the atmosphere as your own private fluid trash pile for free.


In fact, if you can store it on an industrial scale, there's customers who want it!
 
2013-10-25 12:25:38 AM

profplump: RastaKins: Already happening: paying to attach carbon atoms on those oxygen atoms.

You're not paying to attach the carbon. You're paying to release the combination back into the atmosphere. If you want to make CO2 for storage or some other use there's no carbon tax to be paid -- you just aren't allowed to treat the atmosphere as your own private fluid trash pile for free.


Don't breathe. Don't even allow wood to rot. It'll cost you.
 
2013-10-25 08:04:21 AM
Yeah we need the traditional small gubbmint solution.

1. Give the land to corporations
2. Give them huge tax breaks to build solar panels on the land
3. Give them ongoing subsidies to the tune of billions to produce electricity
4. Listen to their CEOs whargarrbl about soshulizm
 
Displayed 70 of 70 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report