The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
5 Signs You're Getting Robbed at the Hospital
The solar energy movement, so promising, has hit a speed bump. Just as solar's cost per kilowatt hour starts to become attractive, from a U.S. residential use standpoint, sure enough another roadblock has appeared.The problem? Environmental concern about destroyed or altered vistas -- essentially sight pollution -- but also pollution that physically harms the environment.
U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's, D-California, stated opposition to building in the Mojave Desert has effectively ended 13 big solar energy plants and wind projects there, The New York Times reported Tuesday.
The desert is home to thousands of forms of wildlife and rare species, and Feinstein does want not those habitats disturbed. Her threat of legislation banning those projects was more than enough to convince developers to consider other sites.
So the solar energy movement is encountering the same type of political resistance as the wind power movement has encountered: residents and environmental activists concerned about the inappropriate use of cherished land. For example, Cape Cod in Massachusetts is a strong candidate for wind mills, based on average wind speeds; it's a horrible candidate, from an environmental standpoint, as building wind mills there would blight some of the most breath-taking vistas on the Atlantic seaboard.
Another hurdle: solar power is also running into the problem of competing claims. Solar power companies may see a site as ideal for collection of the sun's energy, but another company may see the land as ideal for some other business purpose -- for mining or commercial development, or even for residential subdivision, etc.
Energy Analysis: For now, Sen. Feinstein wants solar power companies to concentrate on land that's already been used -- farm land for example -- as sites for solar panel fields. Further, even though from an energy independence standpoint the United States must harness as much solar energy as possible, Sen. Feinstein has a point: we must harness the sun's energy in the least-obtrusive, least-environmentally-blighting way.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-23-2009 @ 5:51PM
Eric said...
Both wind and solar farms require large areas of (environmentally sensitive?) land. Wind farms create an almost constant "whooshing" noise pollution, shread birds in mid-aid and require a road to each windmill (could be hundreds) for maintainence. Solar farms obliterate entire ecosystems by covering the land with solar panels. Both wind and solar farms require large amounts of herbicides and pesticides to prevent plants and insects from bothering the equipment. It astounds me the EPA approves any of these projects at all.
12-23-2009 @ 10:13PM
ij70 said...
LOL. Greens hate power lines.
12-24-2009 @ 8:17AM
MyKisa said...
out of touch, feinstein to use farm land for clean energy production.....sheesh
12-24-2009 @ 8:41AM
jon neigenfind said...
ship feinstein to the desert with a pup tent, boy that would really screw up the enviroment !
12-24-2009 @ 9:28AM
LARRYPI said...
Feinstein is just "posturing" for contributions from the industry. She hasn't learned a lesson fron Sen. Joe L. that when your "contributors" say "jump" you jump and ask them if that was high enough.
12-24-2009 @ 10:41AM
thebadddsanta said...
for mining or commercial development, or even for residential subdivision, LOL what a crock of Shit For Mining? oh no that dont hurt nothing, For residental Subdivisions {Where Is people getting the Jobs From The Mines? Commercial Development? excuse me if I am wrong
But isnt that what would be done if they put wind / Solar farms in the areas be?
12-24-2009 @ 6:40PM
Barry said...
Feinstein has a good point. No matter what is done it will affect the environment potentially. You cannot drill for oil, God forbid drill offshore. No nuclear power plants, even though the technology is in use wide spread and much safer than it once was. No windmills, because you can see them and hear them, and a bird might have a midair with a blade, no Solar because you can see those collectors and disturb the beauty and serenity of the deserts, no more dams to harness the rivers to generate power because it distroys the natural flows of rivers and affects fish stocks. Is there anything left that humans can do to live on this earth which does not in some way bother or affect someone?
12-31-2009 @ 12:19AM
internet dating said...
well nice article
============
Shelly
Stop Credit Card Debt
1-01-2010 @ 3:07PM
verdancasey said...
Sen. Feinstein's objections to solar power in the Mojave Desert are slowing some really promising alternative energy projects in the West. Most of the companies proposing these farms and panel plants are willing to fund research to determine environmental effects and habitat reconstruction, but she continues to demand all-out prohibitions of construction.
If you are really interested in solar energy and committed to moving forward with a green economy, check out http://www.greencollareconomy.com. It has hundreds of case studies on emerging green technology and solar power. It's also the largest b2b green directory on the web.