Bush orders a Freeze on all solar projects

This topic is already on page 3 in this thread:

http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/49883-we-so-need-change-leadership.html

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

 

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

The projects that are being proposed are almost certainly CSP, not PV. CSP is considerably cheaper than PV, is currently more efficient, and provides the ability to produce dispatchable power (via thermal storage in molten salts). Unfortunately, it doesn't scale down well at all (yet anyways). There's nothing wrong with PV, it makes a lot of sense, esp at the individual level, but CSP offers a very good option to utilities to offset carbon emissions. Particularly if these plants are backed-up with NG we could get rid of a LOT of coal fired plants. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Of course there will be environmental impacts, but CSP impacts will be substantially less than BAU energy extraction and production impacts.

 

The issue is the government decided to stop doing their job because it got busy. It's identical to a person going to get a permit to install a solar panel on their roof and getting told to come back in two years since the part time guy filing the permit is overworked. This is a common problem with bad leadership.

The issue at hand is not environmental protection. That is already required by law. If their are too many plants, or some of them are not enviornmentally sound, then REJECT the permit so the company can fix the problem or determine that it needs to be abandoned. Stopping work is not putting the environment first.

 

I agree.

This isn't an environmental issue, it's a bureaucratic issue. And the bureaucrats don't want the plants.

 

As I remember Jimmy Carter did green the white house based on 1976 technology and Ronald Regan ripped everything out...
story of our lives
Froley

 

Yep.

But I'd go a lot farther than Carter did. And as it was happening I'd remind people of Carter's foresight and Reagan's short-sightedness.