SummitPost.org

Salazar has released 1,000 miles^2 of BLM desert land for solar. I think just one area in CA (east of San Diego) is proposed for solar development. I would guess Feinstein has been jockeying to make sure the released land doesn't get too close to the more aesthetic parts of the Mojave.

Feinstein's bill would block development of renewable, carbon-free energy projects. This will make us more dependent on fossil fuels and accelerate global warming. Won't it?

So is global warming the greatest threat to the planet, or not? And sarcasm aside, how is this anything more than crass NIMBY-ism?

I was born and raised in the Mojave, I care about it as much as anyone, but I am sick of coastal liberals making themselves feel good by making life difficult for everyone else. The bottom line is that we need renewable, clean energy, not to mention the JOBS that go along with them (not that Feinstein cares about jobs, after all she and her husband have pretty good ones). Wind and solar projects have to go somewhere, and I would rather they be here in California.

I'm a bit on the preservation side, leaning toward neutral. The solar development has to be near the grid, and has to be on flattish areas, so the most appropriate sites are near towns and in the flats, where I don't spend much time.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what the final end will be. I've looked at the numbers for wattage/square mile in locally planned PV plants, and applying those ratios to the full 1000 mile^2, we'll replace about 3.4% of US energy consumption if we develop the land completely. So I'm saying we're not going to miss a lot if we leave the Mojave mainly untouched.

Thumbs up for Feinstein

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=14d49cae-7398-4d7e-8693-40ed19b44299

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I fly into LA freqently, via several different airports. I can tell you from my own personal experience that the majority of LA rooftops do NOT sport solar panels.

Of of course... lets cover land donated to the Fed for Conservation with mirrors and leave all those rooftops naked and sweltering in the sun.

+1 for rooftop solar. Parking lots too. West of Manhattan, parking lots provide an incredible amount of available area for solar, and of course the benefit would be two-fold here in Vegas and any southwestern city.

Eleven and a half months out of the year, nobody wants to park in the sun. Here, people desperately drive to the few remote landscape islands in the lot, just to park under the half-assed shade of some skimpy mesquite tree.

Cover every parking lot here 95% with solar panels, and leave the other 5% open for daylight to come through. The power source will then be right in the city, where it is being consumed, having the obvious benefit of avoiding the energy losses from 100 miles of transmission lines from a remote array.