Solar Energy Comments due April 18, 2024

[Big Fin]

One of the largest proposals in a long time is open for public comments. It is the proposal to allow large scale solar development in many wildlife-rich areas of the west.

The WyoFile folks do a great job of explaining the possible impacts of such in Wyoming. The same can be said for many of the western states where these public lands are included for possible consideration. Here is a link to the WyoFile article - https://wyofile.com/conservation-gr...xclusions-in-federal-solar-energy-initiative/

If you want to do something positive for conservation and wildlife, here's your chance. It might take five minutes of your time. Link - https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2022371/595/8020124/comment

Thanks for providing your comments (on the plan).

 

[appaloosa]

Comments submitted,
thanks for sharing

 

[rogerthat]

Trcp has put together maps to highlight where solar development's is proposed to be considered in critical big game winter range and migration corridors. If nothing else, make a comment that they need to remove these areas from the proposed

 

[Big Fin]

Trcp has put together maps to highlight where solar development's is proposed to be considered in critical big game winter range and migration corridors. If nothing else, make a comment that they need to remove these areas from the proposed

Agree. Great point.

The reality is, we need energy. We aren't going to stop energy development, and it wouldn't be responsible to advocate for no energy. We need to require that these projects accommodate wildlife, even if it adds costs. Without a voice given to wildlife, lowest cost will be the preferred alternative, often with wildlife and habitat paying the cost.

If the project cannot be economically feasible while accommodating wildlife, it needs to be located elsewhere. (And I have no problem if "elsewhere" ends up being the south-facing thousands of acres of urban buildings/structures that are much closer to where the energy is being consumed.)

 

[perma]

Sent.

 

[nrpate05]

Thanks for bringing this up Randy! This is really a once-in-a-generation plan to help guide how solar is/isn't developed on public BLM lands. Given what the development acreage that BLM foresees there is NO reason for any development to occur in high value wildlife habitat. There are a handful of flaws in this plan as well that give the illusion of protections but don't have teeth. One of the exclusion criteria for Big Game states

"All big game migratory corridors identified in applicable land use plans to the extent the land use plan decision prohibits utility-scale solar energy development. All big game winter ranges identified in applicable land use plans to the extent the land use plan decision prohibits utility-scale solar energy development."

This is a programmatic, west wide plan, that is kicking the decisions to the local Resource Management plan, which kind of makes sense on its face, but in Wyoming, only one RMP actually says anything about solar development in migration or winter range habitat. The others are so outdated that there is little to no consideration of solar.

Once this plan is implemented, any project proposal will still need to go through a project specific NEPA process, but this is an opportunity to ensure those high value habitats are off the table for development.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Submitted

 

[seeth07]

There is no worse eye sore on the landscape than driving past a solar farm. I much prefer all the windmills. Comments sent!

When used on a building, there are numerous ways to now make them attractive or hidden from sight. It should be the only locations where they go.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I would suggest commenting about maintaining migration corridors within the project. It is the most feasible and low hanging fruit across all locations.

(And I have no problem if "elsewhere" ends up being the south-facing thousands of acres of urban buildings/structures that are much closer to where the energy is being consumed.)

The problem with solar on buildings is that it cant be large enough (commercial) scale to generate enough power for much more than the building its on. The shared ownership of the asset for the utility/operator makes it impossible. Its for the same reasons of scale folks/businessed with propane/ng dont use a generator to get their electricity. Additionally - distribution grids arent set up to be 2 way streets with power at this point - and thats the available infrastructure to connect to in the cities/developed areas. Commonly existing infrastructure (HV lines arent everywhere in a city and they serve different purposes than generation HV lines) makes it extremely tough to develop close to urban areas as well. Typically in the grid - it goes generartion source lv, substation, hv line, switchyard, dist substation - lv dist to your house. These are all owned by seperate groups for regulatory reasons - in short generating at a different point in the grid just isnt very feasible.

 

[3855WIN]

Airports have thousands of acres of unused land. Birds and mammals aren’t welcome at airports due to safety concerns. Put that land to good use with solar farms.

 

[3855WIN]

Comments sent. When I typed “BLM” on my Apple phone, the black power fist popped up. lol.

 

[mtmiller]

I would suggest commenting about maintaining migration corridors within the project. It is the most feasible and low hanging fruit across all locations.

The problem with solar on buildings is that it cant be large enough (commercial) scale to generate enough power for much more than the building its on. The shared ownership of the asset for the utility/operator makes it impossible. Its for the same reasons of scale folks/businessed with propane/ng dont use a generator to get their electricity. Additionally - distribution grids arent set up to be 2 way streets with power at this point - and thats the available infrastructure to connect to in the cities/developed areas. Commonly existing infrastructure (HV lines arent everywhere in a city and they serve different purposes than generation HV lines) makes it extremely tough to develop close to urban areas as well. Typically in the grid - it goes generartion source lv, substation, hv line, switchyard, dist substation - lv dist to your house. These are all owned by seperate groups for regulatory reasons - in short generating at a different point in the grid just isnt very feasible.

Appreciate that information.

 

[Matthew57]

Comment submitted, thanks Randy. I have to admit this issue is frustrating to me personally, but I'd rather comment constructively on it there than vent into the abyss (social media).

 

[Forkyfinder]

Appreciate that information.

Here's a simplistic graphic... apologies for the word salad or any confusion. Im an engineer - words are hard.

 

[mtmiller]

Maybe I have posted this before?

 

[CraneMan]

I would suggest commenting about maintaining migration corridors within the project. It is the most feasible and low hanging fruit across all locations.

The problem with solar on buildings is that it cant be large enough (commercial) scale to generate enough power for much more than the building its on. The shared ownership of the asset for the utility/operator makes it impossible. Its for the same reasons of scale folks/businessed with propane/ng dont use a generator to get their electricity. Additionally - distribution grids arent set up to be 2 way streets with power at this point - and thats the available infrastructure to connect to in the cities/developed areas. Commonly existing infrastructure (HV lines arent everywhere in a city and they serve different purposes than generation HV lines) makes it extremely tough to develop close to urban areas as well. Typically in the grid - it goes generartion source lv, substation, hv line, switchyard, dist substation - lv dist to your house. These are all owned by seperate groups for regulatory reasons - in short generating at a different point in the grid just isnt very feasible.

But if it is capable of generating enough for the building it is on or reducing its reliance on the grid, that is less drawn from the grid and available for other purposes is it not? If the Govt pushed (read incentivized) for this scenario instead of subsidizing large scale projects, it could work. Same reason that making cities and towns largely energy independent when located near wind turbine farms is not done, there is no money in it. Much more to be made sending it to Minnesota in ND's case.

 

[SAJ-99]

in short generating at a different point in the grid just isnt very feasible cost effective.

FIFY. My view is I don't care. Every square foot of roof used, even if only powering that building, is a square foot of open space saved. The electrical logistical details are for guys like you to figure out. I don't like seeing the word "impossible".

 

[Forkyfinder]

FIFY. My view is I don't care. Every square foot of roof used, even if only powering that building, is a square foot of open space saved. The electrical logistical details are for guys like you to figure out. I don't like seeing the word "impossible".

I get the sentiment - genuinely. However - its a bit like mixing your mother in law, wife, sister, and grandmother in an apartment kitchen on thanksgiving though.

Cost effective is feasibility and thats always subject to innovation - but the regulatory logistics involved make this argument incoherent in a practical sense.

But if it is capable of generating enough for the building it is on or reducing its reliance on the grid, that is less drawn from the grid and available for other purposes is it not? If the Govt pushed (read incentivized) for this scenario instead of subsidizing large scale projects, it could work. Same reason that making cities and towns largely energy independent when located near wind turbine farms is not done, there is no money in it. Much more to be made sending it to Minnesota in ND's case.

That is true - but remember the sun doesnt shine all the time and the wind doesnt blow all of the time either.

The infrastructure exists and serves a primary distribution purpose. Its designed as such, regulated as such, and constrained as such. Rebuilding the entire system would be so expensive it would never work - we could probably blow up all of ukraine twice and rebuild it twice before upgrading our entire grid to support different mechanisms for power delivery.

But if it is capable of generating enough for the building it is on or reducing its reliance on the grid, that is less drawn from the grid and available for other purposes is it not? If the Govt pushed (read incentivized) for this scenario instead of subsidizing large scale projects, it could work. Same reason that making cities and towns largely energy independent when located near wind turbine farms is not done, there is no money in it. Much more to be made sending it to Minnesota in ND's case.

It is. And its being heavily subsidized for businesses and individuals to do as such.

 

[Matthew57]

Additionally - distribution grids arent set up to be 2 way streets with power at this point

Isn't that what net metering is for?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Isn't that what net metering is for?

It is - and that tells you about the powerflow locally.

That doesnt deal with electrical protection issues, safety issues, or a whole host of other issues that come with that which are frankly way beyond the scope of my understanding.

Local power companies are more accepting of it depending on their infrastructure - but as a whole are really resistive to it because it robs their funding (power bills) to keep and maintain that infrastructure.