Bush orders a Freeze on all solar projects

[Rybold]

CNN-News Video - President Bush ordered a two-year freeze on all solar panel projects so that an Environmental Impact Report can be conducted. Currently, there are 150 projects that have submitted applications. Those projects will be allowed to proceed. No new applications will be accepted. Some environmental groups are in support of this freeze, stating that solar panels cover acres and acres of habitat.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

Personally, I agree with the viewpoint of the environmental groups that say that solar panels would cover too much habitat. I personally feel that solar panels should be decentralized, and that each building should have it's own solar panels, and such panels should plug into the grid to create a buffer. We already have buildings covering the environment - just put the panels on top of the pre-existing buildings.
As to whether I agree with Bush's decision or not ... my jury is still out.

Here is an interesting fact: The 2005 Hurricane Season damage cost a total of $80 billion dollars. Consequently, 2005 was the warmest year on record. A correlation? It's a possibility. My statement on this though is ... think of how many solar panels and wind turbines the U.S. could buy with $80 billion.

[burritos]

This topic is already on page 3 in this thread:

http://priuschat.com/forums/environm...eadership.html

I didn't know that the top of people's roofs were considered habitat.

[Godiva]

My personal feeling is that utilities should 'rent' roofspace much like companies rent locations for billboards. Then put up as much PV as the space can accommodate. The "rent" can be that the owner gets the electricity credit to offset their bill and anything generated above and beyond goes to the utility for FREE. There are plenty of roofs all around my neighborhood that are perfectly situated for PV generation and no way they'll use all of the electricity generated.

But no. SDGE would rather put 160 foot towers through the Anza Borrego State Park. To link up the future solar production sites that apparently won't begin constuction for at least 2 years or more.

(If *I* were President you'd see the White House green so fast. They do have a modest garden. But they're be PV, solar hot water, aggressive recycling and composting, buying local, expanding that garden with menus seasonally based, and government cars would all be hybrids. I'd do the same thing to Camp David (stupid name). That's just to start.)

[patsparks]

Pity buildings there have no roofs.
Why not provide a subsidy or tax incentive for people to install solar on their homes?

I believe the Texan might be taking notice of the environmentalists the coal companies sponsor.

[drees]

This thread is highly misleading.

The projects that are being "halted" are large scale projects requesting the use of public lands.

You can still build whatever type of solar project you want if you own the land.

It's still a setback, none-the-less.

[Rybold]

Originally Posted by burritos

This topic is already on page 3 in this thread:
http://priuschat.com/forums/environm...eadership.html
I didn't know that the top of people's roofs were considered habitat.

Interesting. I searched for it before I started a new topic. Sorry.
I was referring to the ground underneath buildings as being habitat that has already been stomped on. If that habitat has already been destroyed, then we should put solar panels on the roofs of preexisting buildings instead of destroying even more habitat.

Originally Posted by Godiva

My personal feeling is that utilities should 'rent' roofspace much like companies rent locations for billboards.

I've suggested the same thing in the past. I agree with you 100%.
I hadn't thought of the White house "lead by example," but that is an excellent idea. Just like the Google headquarters, the Pentagon could be covered. Google_headquarters_solar_panels en Flickr: ¡Intercambio de fotos!

Drees, it pertains mainly to power companies that sell electricity, and would be requesting public land to build large scale projects. It does not affect people who are generating their own power.

[drees]

Originally Posted by Rybold

Drees, it pertains mainly to power companies that sell electricity, and would be requesting public land to build large scale projects. It does not affect people who are generating their own power.

Isn't that exactly what I said? The first post (and all subsequent posts until mine) do not mention this and therefore lead you into thinking that you can't build any solar project at all for the next two years.

[patsparks]

Roofs of public buildings can be used, this is only one of many but it is the biggest.
Australian Made Solar Power To Touchdown at Adelaide Airport
(Rundle Mall is about 1/4 mile long, but you would have known that.)

And one on the bus station to run a free electric bus service. Free power from the sun in a free bus ride.
All-Electric, Solar-Powered, Free Bus!!! | EcoGeek

At the Adelaide Show-grounds, just outside the city centre.
Solar boost for Adelaide showgrounds - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

What about solar trees?
The Original Solar Trees (from Adelaide) : TreeHugger

On the roof of a museum?
Solar City Case Study: Adelaide, Australia

and the art gallery, even Parliament House!!
Tackling Climate Change: South Australia's Greenhouse Strategy

[Rakimb17]

We've already lost this battle if we expect anything positive to come from Mr. Bush. If every politician were in the mold of Mr. Bush the year 2050 would be hilarious. Every privately owned building will have solar panels that will produce the majority of the electricity because commercial energy will just be tooooooo expensive. And the White House and the Congress will have to light candles because the government will not have enough money to pay its light bill.
What do you expect from a guy that can only get out of a whole by digging even further?

[Rybold]

Patsparks, thank you for the links!