22 million BLM acres for development?

Good point to bring up ⬆️. I’ve never yet met an unhappy person who fronted the cost for their residential solar. Those who are bound to a contract, sometimes not so happy.
 
The grift is collapsing.

"After interests and fees, that $62,000 turned out to be more like $90,000. Today, Hernandez pays about $400 a month on the loan. Worse, his electric bill is still in the $500 range, because the panels do not produce the promised electricity. The company took out a lien on his house without his knowledge, he says, and it turns out that his 2019 income—around $50,000—meant that he wasn’t making enough money to qualify for the tax incentive upfront. He sued Southern Solar, and a jury awarded him $500,000 in November 2023 but he hasn’t seen a penny yet, he says. "

We should just get rid of American capitalism entirely. If businesses can't be trusted to operate ethically, we shouldn't have businesses.
 
Personally, I believe multiple use is pretty crucial to the success and existence of public lands. Opposing an entire industry is just not realistic, and has no backing in terms of historic success in doing so.
I am trending hard away from this, and I don't think it will stand the test of time. Multiple use was a nice idea, but you can only squeeze so much juice from the fruit. You can't keep piling more and more and more one and expect to maintain the status quo let alone improve conditions.

I would contend that in leu of the climate catastrophism propaganda (which from a geologic scale is laughable at best) I'd rather have traditional everything, O&G and mining, because at least in theory (and in practice as well to a lesser degree) they are temporary uses, temporary facilities. Eventually the asset will run out and we can reclaim the land for wildlife. But no green energies. Those are permanent. And if switching to green energy is this moral high ground that we absolutely must take- for the baby animals and children of course- then can't we pony up a little more and focus on subsidizing installations over existing developed lands? I really don't see why anyone would support paving over undeveloped desert when there are hundreds of miles of pavement already out there just waiting to be shaded. It's not like traditional sources, where you have to exact them where they exist, wind and solar are much more wide spread.

Just to keep people honest. You might want to scroll through a couple of these threads and see what you thought this topic previously. Interestingly most of this is in relation to the Utah, which was identified as one of the States within this 22 mil designation area.

 
Good point to bring up ⬆️. I’ve never yet met an unhappy person who fronted the cost for their residential solar. Those who are bound to a contract, sometimes not so happy.
If you own the panels outright, and the company that sold them to you goes tits up, the warranty is worthless. See how happy they are in the years to come.
 
If you own the panels outright, and the company that sold them to you goes tits up, the warranty is worthless. See how happy they are in the years to come.
More than a few solar companies out there with awful customer service reviews and pyramid scheme vibes for the sales people
 
And you continue to make excuses for continuing this solar energy charade.

1.) You call it a charade, I call it an industry that's already larger than coal.
2.) We decided as a nation to go with a blended system that subsidized private industry, so - yeah - I support subsidies for renewables and subsidies for individuals to get their panels & wind set up. And, because it's still emerging technology, I support even more subsidies for R&D.

For the last 100 years, energy producers have sucked the taxpayer dry to boost profits while passing costs off to the people. Solar subsidies actually put money in citizen's pocket/help them keep it. That helpd keep our immediate energy costs low (and honestly, we're still the cheapest date in the developed world when it comes to gasoline prices).

I don't remember seeing any kind of grant program for installing a coal-fired generator in my basement. Did I miss that? I do remember my cousins getting laid off while management took 6 figure bonuses.
 
We should just get rid of American capitalism entirely. If businesses can't be trusted to operate ethically, we shouldn't have businesses.
I think we would effectively lose all motive for innovation without capitalism, slippery slope for keeping up with our world competitors while still maintaining our “freedom”
 
I am trending hard away from this, and I don't think it will stand the test of time. Multiple use was a nice idea, but you can only squeeze so much juice from the fruit. You can't keep piling more and more and more one and expect to maintain the status quo let alone improve conditions.
Probably some truth to that. Like I said in an earlier post, you can only compromise so many times, because sooner or later you can't cut things in half anymore. But take for instance here in North Dakota. If one took a stance that it all has to go (development), there would be a blood bath here over selling it all off. The fact that it is multiple use is what keeps it in existence to some degree.

I would contend that in leu of the climate catastrophism propaganda (which from a geologic scale is laughable at best) I'd rather have traditional everything, O&G and mining, because at least in theory (and in practice as well to a lesser degree) they are temporary uses, temporary facilities. Eventually the asset will run out and we can reclaim the land for wildlife. But no green energies. Those are permanent. And if switching to green energy is this moral high ground that we absolutely must take- for the baby animals and children of course- then can't we pony up a little more and focus on subsidizing installations over existing developed lands? I really don't see why anyone would support paving over undeveloped desert when there are hundreds of miles of pavement already out there just waiting to be shaded. It's not like traditional sources, where you have to exact them where they exist, wind and solar are much more wide spread.
Oil wells can be on the landscape for over 70 years. In terms of the climate discussion that may just as well be permanent. I'm not smart enough to sit here and argue climate change, timelines, etc. But I can tell you that 70 years is a multi generational impact. That the infrastructure that comes with it, often time never goes away. Even after the well is gone. I can point to examples here in ND that highlight that very case. Your post makes it sound like we just see industry pop in quick, just a few years, and you never knew they were there. That's not only not true, but it's a completely disingenuous to suggest that is even remotely close to the truth.

Is an oil pad better than a solar field? Absolutely, you'll get no argument from me. Is it even remotely realistic that conservation groups were going to put their foot down and stop any and ALL renewable energy projects on public lands. I would say there is a greater chance that a snowman makes a permanent home in an equatorial jungle.

So what does that leave us with? Participating in the process like everyone else. Fighting projects where we can, giving input where we can, and participating in a way that benefits the things we care about. If that's not good enough for you, please tell me what your expectation is and what bright ideas you have on how to turn the energy industry monster (all of it) around?
 
I would contend that in leu of the climate catastrophism propaganda (which from a geologic scale is laughable at best) I'd rather have traditional everything, O&G and mining, because at least in theory (and in practice as well to a lesser degree) they are temporary uses, temporary facilities. Eventually the asset will run out and we can reclaim the land for wildlife.
I think "in theory" is the operative word here. Having grown up just outside a massive superfund site, and covered much ground in my home state, the scars are deep and lasting. I've seem some incredible reclamation work as well, but once you level a mountain (as they did in Butte), or destroy an old growth forest, you can never get something back.

At least with BLM, they frequently have used land for grazing leases. And although cattle do significant damage in their own way, there is still room for deer and elk to migrate (antelope, not so much because of barbed wire), and cattlemen do try to maintain the grass for their cattle. Wildlife does benefit some from this maintenance.
 
And if switching to green energy is this moral high ground that we absolutely must take
nothing is absolute. There are options. We can put carbon capture filters on nat gas plants, hell even coal plants. If the real issue is carbon pollution, there are alternatives. The cost of that is it will add an estimated $0.03/kwh to our electric bill. Let’s see how @BigHornRam feels about that. I think some just have a list of things they hate and learning more about it is “too hard”.
 
My biggest issue with solar is the multiple use aspect. Put in a field of solar panels and you are getting close to solar and only solar. There might be a place for solar on public where there is little other uses, I am thinking of the salt flats in Nevada or Utah, but the Red Desert in WY is not one of them.
Thats not really true. In areas, there is grazing of it.

 
Back
Top