BHA can now celebrate. Hypocrites

[hossblur]

After spending too much time reading this thread, my biggest takeaway is that many people still don’t understand that multiple use is a mandate. Resource extraction and energy generation are going to happen on public lands. That is one of their many purposes. Your options are to either ignore that and be relegated to the sidelines, or get to work and help figure out how to make that happen in the most responsible way with the least impacts and with rules to ensure any cleanup and remediation costs are borne by those who made the profit.

It’s going to happen whether you like it or not, regardless of what administration is in power, or what China does, or whether BHA puts out a position statement in opposition, or….

Of all of the damaging ways to get energy off public land, solar farms are the most damaging and create the biggest footprint.

Supposedly they are a hunting,fishing, outdoors org, not an energy org.

Not to sidetrack, but they sure can stay quiet on predators. I guess a hunting org, doesn't want a seat at the table?

If "is going to happen", what is all this noise about mines in Alaska, or Boundary waters?

Yes, I know, it's central Utah, who cares. Those rednecks vote R, and elected Mike Lee, piss on them. And BHA can't figure out, WHY they elect Mike Lee, or frankly why BHA ain't real popular in BLM country. Those hicks can read, they see who and what BHA advocated for, BEFORE this bill passed

 

[Ben Lamb]

Of course we outsource our energy.

We put environment regs on companies doing business in the US, but we don't extend that. The current administration is begging Venezuela to pump oil. So it's not opposed to pumping oil under strict regulations, it's opposed to being seen pumping oil.

Play word games all day, but if pumping (drilling) oil is bad, it's no less bad south of us.

And in fact, it's WORSE than it being done in US or Canada.

NIMBY. Call it world markets, call it whatever, but 1st world nations do it cleaner, so shutting them down to favor Saudi, Russia, or Venezuela, is outsourcing the pollution.

Companies outsource due to cost. Yup. As long as we allow it.

Funny how Russia invades Ukraine, suddenly we can ban oil. Venezuela, Saudi, pollute, we can't.

It can be done, I hate to point to pre Biden, but, facts are facts.

We are looking at an EV revolution. Great. I spend $400-$500 a month on gas, I'd be fine not doing that.

But at what cost? How many tons of dirt need to be moved for a battery? Are we openly discussing the cost of EV? NO.

But we, in the US will require miners to submit to regs, so the car companies, will outsource to Africa, which means China, and because it's not in our eyesight, we will pretend.

"The world changes". The BIGGEST copout ever.

Does it? Does more dirt come available? More acreage?

The easy, copout answer, and the one that BHA took is, "we need it". Do we? Have we exhausted the already developed acreage for turbine or panel housing? Or, are we fine AGAIN trading land for political expediency?

There's a reason, these projects are in rural Utah, and Central Wyoming. Bet your ass, when they(they won't) show up in Suburban areas, suddenly, inventive creations will happen.


Don't forget, it's not JUST a 4800 acre solar farm, it's infrastructure outside of the farm. Roads, substations, transmission lines, etc.

I'm sure the Chicago company that got the bid, gives a rats ass about hunting, fishing, public land

 

[MTGomer]

ngl tho, I also have a special hatred toward solar "farms" that have been popping up in my area. These have literally replaced actual farms

I’ve heard it stated multiple times lately (in the SW) that solar replacing farms is desirable because of the water usage of farming.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’ve heard it stated multiple times lately (in the SW) that solar replacing farms is desirable because of the water usage of farming.

No better use of a precious & limited resource than orchards in the desert, and lawns as far as the eye can see.

 

[jryoung]

I’ve heard it stated multiple times lately (in the SW) that solar replacing farms is desirable because of the water usage of farming.

Low value ag land close to transmission lines is a highly targeted area for solar installations. In California, irrigation districts are utilizing this strategy to meet the state's mandate for renewable energy demands.

With the tens of thousands of acres in the southern San Joaquin valley that have been converted to water intensive nut crops there is tremendous potential here to intermix renewables with existing farms. The soil and the southern San Joaquin is deteriorating and water use and pumping of groundwater is literally causing the ground to sink.

Landowners can install solar with a 25-year power purchase agreement for guaranteed income, the county gets tax revenue from the solar farm, and good paying jobs can be created through construction, installation and long-term servicing.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I think you have to recognize that solar arrays are not compatible with the multiple user philosophy, unlike, for instance hunting, hiking grazing and others.

Once it's gone, it ain't never coming back.

Of all of the damaging ways to get energy off public land, solar farms are the most damaging and create the biggest footprint.

Supposedly they are a hunting,fishing, outdoors org, not an energy org.

Not to sidetrack, but they sure can stay quiet on predators. I guess a hunting org, doesn't want a seat at the table?

If "is going to happen", what is all this noise about mines in Alaska, or Boundary waters?

Yes, I know, it's central Utah, who cares. Those rednecks vote R, and elected Mike Lee, piss on them. And BHA can't figure out, WHY they elect Mike Lee, or frankly why BHA ain't real popular in BLM country. Those hicks can read, they see who and what BHA advocated for, BEFORE this bill passed

I recognize that it might not be compatible with many people’s idea of what the multiple user philosophy means to them, but agencies aren’t asked to make sure every acre is available to every use. They have to balance the uses, and different uses get priority in different places. And solar will be no different.

Don’t get me wrong…I think solar is the energy development method most destructive to the landscape of any of them, and I hate it. But, when Congress says “Hey, Land Management Agency, thou SHALL find a way to make this happen”, then you have to find a way to do it in the place and way that has the least impact. I would much rather see solar on rooftops, and highway corridors, and marginal farmland, and just about anywhere that is already impacted by people. But we have a human population and consumerism problem that isn’t going away and I doubt solar or wind restricted to those areas is going to meet our needs. What state you are in or what letter someone voted for are completely irrelevant.

 

[BigHornRam]

Industrial scale solar panel availability is hitting a speed bump. You need to thank Joe if this Utah BLM parcel doesn't get developed, Hoss.

Here's how a new US protectionist move is backfiring badly on the US solar industry [update]

Most US solar companies are now saying the DOC investigation is hurting them, as they rely on solar module imports to meet growing demand.

electrek.co

"US manufacturing of solar cells and panels needs to be kickstarted, but it’s a major and significant operation that will take years to establish.

And as a result, the much-needed solar industry growth could come to a screeching halt, and then everyone loses.

The Biden administration needs to reconsider this investigation, as it’s shooting its own climate change goals in the foot and kneecapping the vital solar industry."

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Solar

1. Needs a lot of space
2. Best if near use areas to reduce electricity lose due to transmission
3. Helpful if it's easily accessible, in order to replace panels.




Might help with reducing the amount of salt we need on roads to melt snow as well...

 

[Schaaf]

Solar

1. Needs a lot of space
2. Best if near use areas to reduce electricity lose due to transmission
3. Helpful if it's easily accessible, in order to replace panels.

View attachment 220549


Might help with reducing the amount of salt we need on road to melt snow as well...

This guy’s a douche.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

View attachment 220551
This guy’s a douche.

He's just from NJ

 

[BrentD]

I recognize that it might not be compatible with many people’s idea of what the multiple user philosophy means to them, but agencies aren’t asked to make sure every acre is available to every use. They have to balance the uses, and different uses get priority in different places. And solar will be no different.

Don’t get me wrong…I think solar is the energy development method most destructive to the landscape of any of them, and I hate it. But, when Congress says “Hey, Land Management Agency, thou SHALL find a way to make this happen”, then you have to find a way to do it in the place and way that has the least impact. I would much rather see solar on rooftops, and highway corridors, and marginal farmland, and just about anywhere that is already impacted by people. But we have a human population and consumerism problem that isn’t going away and I doubt solar or wind restricted to those areas is going to meet our needs. What state you are in or what letter someone voted for are completely irrelevant.

I agree with 100%, in the pragmatic sense, but solar (and some other endeavors) is simply incompatible with the multiuse philosophy, however much they are recognized as legitimate. So long as activities that permanently preclude other multiuse activities are permitted in this system, then the outcome can only be the eventual, permanent loss of all public lands. One permit at a time, they are effectively removing multiuse opportunities until there simple is no place for them. In reality, they could just buy up billionaire ranches and convert them into solar - at least it would get the elk and mulies off of private.

That is is a slow process does not make up for its insidious finality.

And, yes, we have a human population problem. Absolutely no one wants to even talk about that, much less do something. I suggest modeling a kid-tag system on the Wyoming elk permit and tag system? I'd even allow point-holders to transfer their Wyoming Elk points to kid-points, so we could back up point creep, and maybe I could have a chance of one more chance at Cervus canadensis before I croak.

Would BHA support that? If not, THEN maybe we shouldn't support BHA? (just kidding - sorta).

 

[Schaaf]

He's just from NJ

 

[hossblur]

View attachment 220551
This guy’s a douche.

Why I'm laughing in not sure, but I'm laughing

 

[Wildabeest]

Solar

1. Needs a lot of space
2. Best if near use areas to reduce electricity lose due to transmission
3. Helpful if it's easily accessible, in order to replace panels.

View attachment 220549


Might help with reducing the amount of salt we need on roads to melt snow as well...

I’ve always wondered how many megawatts could be generated if every massive shopping center parking lot was covered in solar panels. Covered parking and power generation with minimal additional environmental impact. Win-win-win. I’m sure there’s some practical reason it’s not been done. Or not.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I’ve always wondered how many megawatts could be generated if every massive shopping center parking lot was covered in solar panels. Covered parking and power generation with minimal additional environmental impact. Win-win-win. I’m sure there’s some practical reason it’s not been done. Or not.

Women drivers


Kidding, I’m only kidding ladies.

 

[LuketheDog]

Solar

1. Needs a lot of space
2. Best if near use areas to reduce electricity lose due to transmission
3. Helpful if it's easily accessible, in order to replace panels.

View attachment 220549


Might help with reducing the amount of salt we need on roads to melt snow as well...

They're already supposedly proposing doing this over the California aquaduct, which supposedly will use the cool water to cool the solar panels, and the panels will shade the water to supposedly prevent loss to evaporation...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’ve always wondered how many megawatts could be generated if every massive shopping center parking lot was covered in solar panels. Covered parking and power generation with minimal additional environmental impact. Win-win-win. I’m sure there’s some practical reason it’s not been done. Or not.

New construction of any kind that has some sort of grid capable power generation system would help both stabilize the grid and provide localized resiliency. We waste all kinds of roof pace in housing developments, new business developments, etc. Add power generation requirements to new subdivisions: You want to build it? You gotta supply the electricity to run it.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I’ve heard it stated multiple times lately (in the SW) that solar replacing farms is desirable because of the water usage of farming.

I've managed 3 projects (totaling roughly 4,000 acres) in the central valley (CA) that were converted from ag to solar and maintained ag zoning by use for grazing.

It's a good thing to use less water but for the most part these lands weren't going to keep getting planted due to a lack of water anyway. A drive through the central valley reveals an astounding amount of fallow former crop ground that is no longer planted due to water limitations.

This is an article about the water struggles and impact on ag in the area- 200,000 acres left fallow last year due to water constraints in the one irrigation district the projects i referenced are located: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...is-strangling-the-farming-industry/ar-AAVjy54

Doesn't seem like a terrible deal for folks who cant make ag money off their land but I can understand why it's not liked by many.

I’ve always wondered how many megawatts could be generated if every massive shopping center parking lot was covered in solar panels. Covered parking and power generation with minimal additional environmental impact. Win-win-win. I’m sure there’s some practical reason it’s not been done. Or not.

Cost and permitting/development difficulty. Besides not being nearly as cost effective as building in an open field, you've got to get that energy to the grid. If there is nearby transmission and space for a substation that might not be an issue but if there isn't you're going to have to find a way to route a bunch of energy through already developed landscapes to get to transmission. The existing distribution networks weren't designed for a bunch of new generation typically.

Would be preferable to green field for many reasons though if it could be developed and finances made sense.

 

[Wildabeest]

New construction of any kind that has some sort of grid capable power generation system would help both stabilize the grid and provide localized resiliency. We waste all kinds of roof pace in housing developments, new business developments, etc. Add power generation requirements to new subdivisions: You want to build it? You gotta supply the electricity to run it.

What’s interesting is how much more attention you pay to your energy consumption when you have to generate it yourself. I have two places that are 100% off grid with solar (and backup generators). No massive ugly solar farms, just panels on the roof, When I’m there, I use power very differently than when I’m at my other place with normal service. I seldom power up the generators because I don’t like the noise. But I don’t feel like I’m giving anything up.

I’ll submit that we have more of an energy consumption problem than an energy generation and transmission problem, but nobody seems to want to talk about that. We all want our cake.

 

[BigHornRam]

What’s interesting is how much more attention you pay to your energy consumption when you have to generate it yourself. I have two places that are 100% off grid with solar (and backup generators). No massive ugly solar farms, just panels on the roof, When I’m there, I use power very differently than when I’m at my other place with normal service. I seldom power up the generators because I don’t like the noise. But I don’t feel like I’m giving anything up.

I’ll submit that we have more of an energy consumption problem than an energy generation and transmission problem, but nobody seems to want to talk about that. We all want our cake.

Three different houses? Imagine the landscape if everyone had 3 houses? Well as long as you can own 3 houses and subsist on 75 gigajoules per year, you will be more happy according to this Stanford study.

How much energy powers a good life? Less than you're using, says a new report

Americans use nearly four times the energy researchers say is needed to live a happy, healthy and prosperous life.

www.npr.org