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  
•       •       •

10459 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2013 at 4:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 20 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report