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 20
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

10456 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Oct 2013 at 4:18 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-24 04:23:13 PM
4 votes:
"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 05:27:57 PM
2 votes:
Tax incentives, no-interest government loans, subsidies and mandatory green energy portfolios to the rescue.
2013-10-24 05:22:12 PM
2 votes:
Answer is simple Obamapower. JUst get men with guns to force people to use it.
2013-10-24 04:56:02 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-10-25 08:04:21 AM
1 votes:
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
2013-10-25 12:25:38 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-10-24 09:57:56 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:26 PM
1 votes:

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 06:16:01 PM
1 votes:

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 06:13:15 PM
1 votes:

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 06:10:58 PM
1 votes:
You can't OWN the sun, man.
2013-10-24 06:10:32 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:55:09 PM
1 votes:

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 05:52:15 PM
1 votes:

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 05:38:28 PM
1 votes:

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 05:35:13 PM
1 votes:
sure, "Watch me make this pencil disappear . . ."

www.moviequotesandmore.com

about what I would do if offered, "The Sunlight to bid on"
DNRFA
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-10-24 05:19:26 PM
1 votes:
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 04:41:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:29:55 PM
1 votes:
metrouk2.files.wordpress.com
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report