# Public land under threat from both sides now



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Federal Lands in Utah Earmarked for Massive Solar Energy Project


<p></meta>CEDAR CITY, Utah — Minersville Solar Energy LLC, a subsidiary of Chicago-based sustainable energy developer Invenergy, has been awarded leases to develop a massive solar farm on about 4,800 acres of public land in Utah’s Escalante Desert. According to the Bureau of Land Management’s...




www.thewellnews.com





Whether is Mike Lee, or Joe Biden, everyone has a scheme to grab land.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

To be honest, if the picture in the article is accurate, if that's what they want to put it on, I'm not exactly getting a wedgy and all P.O'ed about it. That said, Solar and wind farms can take up HUGE tracks of land in order to be an effective energy source, and that does bother me some. It's the part that the Go Green crowd usually omit. It's one reason why green energy isn't as environmentally friendly as it's proponents would advertise.


----------



## greatbasinduckboats (9 mo ago)

Lone_Hunter said:


> To be honest, if the picture in the article is accurate, if that's what they want to put it on, I'm not exactly getting a wedgy and all P.O'ed about it. That said, Solar and wind farms can take up HUGE tracks of land in order to be an effective energy source, and that does bother me some. It's the part that the Go Green crowd usually omit. It's one reason why green energy isn't as environmentally friendly as it's proponents would advertise.


I heard an interview with a guy (can't remember his name) on the Meat Eater podcast who was a consultant for developing green energy, specifically solar and wind, and he was saying that his company's goal was to reclaim land that's already been used for energy extraction, specifically mines, landfills, waste sites, etc. and use those areas for solar and wind farms. Seems like a good balance to me, allowing the infrastructure for renewable energy without claiming public land for new projects. Hopefully future energy projects can make use of lands like that.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

So called green, clean energy, or whatever the hell you want to call it isn't that at all! A solar panels life is only 10 years and all the wire that is mined with diesel equipment to get the power from the source to the product sure isn't green. Oh, but hey....they never tell you that or all the hippy's, and environmental friendly freaks wouldn't have anything to grip about. I tell those folks to get back in their Subaru and go eat grass.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

greatbasinduckboats said:


> I heard an interview with a guy (can't remember his name) on the Meat Eater podcast who was a consultant for developing green energy, specifically solar and wind, and he was saying that his company's goal was to reclaim land that's already been used for energy extraction, specifically mines, landfills, waste sites, etc. and use those areas for solar and wind farms. Seems like a good balance to me, allowing the infrastructure for renewable energy without claiming public land for new projects. Hopefully future energy projects can make use of lands like that.


The problem with using or trying to use "reclaimed" land is that most of that land is suppose to be reclaimed back to it's natural state. Even the mighty Bingham Canyon Mine will eventually be reclaimed back to hillsides. I hunt near a large copper mine in Arizona that has been reclaimed and now most of it is back to it's natural state of desert scrubs and cactus and 90% of it would not be useful for either a wind farm or solar just due to the terrine of where it is located at.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Companies have been saturating this region with massive fields solar arrays the last ten years . They stretch from the west side of Cedar all the way to Newcastle. I don't know as much about the ones in Beaver Co but it's not shocking to see them pop up there as well.

These projects definitely come with a cost. The initial process severely disturbs the ecosystem of the parcel. Not only is native plant life often obliterated but they are often fenced off to protect the investment & therefore add to habitat fragmentation. And there other costs baked into manufacturing of the panels.

That said, it's not so black and white as not being "green". The carbon footprint of that energy production is almost nil insight compared to other options. It's a free and readily available source.

Not to mention we are comparing a commercial energy sector just emerging out of its infancy to an industry that's been extracting and adapting since we decided living indoors with a source of heat was a good idea. The solar industry is maturing fast and market forces are driving down costs and steadily finding less toxic and eco-friendly ways to produce and ship panels. Would be great if most were produced here, but I think that about most things.

It's not an either/or when it comes to these things. We'll need fossil fuels and renewables. And looking to the future the more we supplement and augment our infrastructure with renewables the longer we can sustain fossil fuel driven needs and critical infrastructure. Not to mention, solar energy sources aren't reliant on the whims of cartels and authoritarians, no small benefit given what we are currently seeing play out.

The cost benefit analysis of public land use for solar isn't a simple one but it's worth considering. And changing policy so solar can come in after fossil fuel extraction instead of current reclamation requirements could be a brilliant solution.

But then again, I'm about to become a Subaru owner so what do I know other than I'm about to get twice the fuel efficiency than my current midsized truck. 🤪


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

It's frustrating that Cali has a bunch of regulations for clean air, and then outsources their energy to Utah - who burns coal to produce it. Now we are a solar farm. The reality is, we can produce enough for ourselves. Sick of fueling other states for minimal to no benefit. 

Yeah, that's selfish. So what.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Is this the same one as the 7,000 acre proposal which effects the Pine Valley deer herd's winter range? The Southern RAC discussed it- worth the listen. These solar farms are destructive to wildlife and migration corridors. They also create immense non-accessible, no shooting/hunting perimeters as buffer zones.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Critter said:


> The problem with using or trying to use "reclaimed" land is that most of that land is suppose to be reclaimed back to it's natural state. Even the mighty Bingham Canyon Mine will eventually be reclaimed back to hillsides. I hunt near a large copper mine in Arizona that has been reclaimed and now most of it is back to it's natural state of desert scrubs and cactus and 90% of it would not be useful for either a wind farm or solar just due to the terrine of where it is located at.



Exactly.

How do we look at the extractive industry guys, and tell them their livelihood loss, is good for the environment, then turn around and build these monstrosities.

And that doesn't include the power infrastructure needed to be built around them.

Seems less about "environment", and more about who gets paid if their team is red or blue.


backcountry said:


> Companies have been saturating this region with massive fields solar arrays the last ten years . They stretch from the west side of Cedar all the way to Newcastle. I don't know as much about the ones in Beaver Co but it's not shocking to see them pop up there as well.
> 
> These projects definitely come with a cost. The initial process severely disturbs the ecosystem of the parcel. Not only is native plant life often obliterated but they are often fenced off to protect the investment & therefore add to habitat fragmentation. And there other costs baked into manufacturing of the panels.
> 
> ...



Drilling oil isn't reliant on the whims of dictators either.

I have a hard time believing we couldn't cover every school, and gov building with panels, tied into already existing infrastructure and not achieve the same output, without sterilizing huge swaths of public land.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Our country's energy sector is currently reliant on the whims of those people. Not only do we import huge amounts of fossil fuel to support our infrastructure and habits but we as Americans are at the mercy of how those entities can manipulate prices. It doesn't have to be that way but it is and the majority of solutions require choices most of don't support, ie increased regulation of corporate transactions or changing who the fossil fuels belong to.

Not to mention most of the fossil fuel industry is doing plenty well right now. Solar and renewables have not yet displaced those fields or jobs as some claim. Any rational person knows our country will require fossil fuels well into our future. We may see fewer jobs in certain sectors of things like coal extraction but most saw growth even during the turbulent year of 2020 (year over year). Few people disregard the value of fossil fuels workers as most of us know how important they are to our country.

And if I understand correctly, the biggest losses in those fields were several years ago when OPEC manipulated the market via production. The US fracking industry took a major hit as those countries artificially deflated value via sudden saturation of the market. The industry learned to be cautious with production after that as there is a clear bottom in value that can destroy companies (and did). Even now they are relatively timid in producing much more as they are recovering profits and satisfying share holders. That's one of the reasons we haven't seen a sudden rise in employment despite the international thirst.

And public land is largely multiple use. I'm not saying solar is always the best use but it is one. And the places that regulate private construction like you describe are often disparaged for such infringement. California is moving to require all new construction to have solar built in and are being mocked for it. Not to mention the cost of that is immediately passed onto those distinct renters and buyers. While the cost of solar on public land is shared by all consumers over longer time frames. 

No easy solutions. No black and white distinctions between good and bad (or red v blue). We are stuck with difficult decisions and compromises because of the nature of our country's industry, expectations about quality of life and consumer habits. And our public lands have always been part of that equation and remain so. I'm not a huge fan of vaporizing birds mid-flight or sterilizing broad swaths of land but neither I a fan of breathing fossil fuel emissions or global climate change its catalyzing.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

backcountry said:


> Our country's energy sector is currently reliant on the whims of those people. Not only do we import huge amounts of fossil fuel to support our infrastructure and habits but we as Americans are at the mercy of how those entities can manipulate prices. It doesn't have to be that way but it is and the majority of solutions require choices most of don't support, ie increased regulation of corporate transactions or changing who the fossil fuels belong to.
> 
> Not to mention most of the fossil fuel industry is doing plenty well right now. Solar and renewables have not yet displaced those fields or jobs as some claim. Any rational person knows our country will require fossil fuels well into our future. We may see fewer jobs in certain sectors of things like coal extraction but most saw growth even during the turbulent year of 2020 (year over year). Few people disregard the value of fossil fuels workers as most of us know how important they are to our country.
> 
> ...



Agreed.


But as an American, I want the people to decide, openly.

And, I'm not wild about a handful of western states, bearing the brunt of this.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

OK, so green energy production isn't even close to being perfect yet. Technology is always a "process" that takes time and patience. Remember the old brick phones, how about copper wire internet, or even cars that only averaged 12-15 MPG and before that, we didn't even have cars. We used to use lead based paint in our kids rooms and shoot lead bullets in our guns. And, for heaven sakes, even oil and coal science has brought us many many great innovations and products. 
But, one thing is absolutely clear, and don't even start in on the "we ain't to fault" foolishness, burning fossil fuels to produce...actual to release energy, is not the answer. We need to stop building a fire every time it gets cold.
Man kind will over come the problems, we just need to stop cutting off our nose to spite our face.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> It's not an either/or when it comes to these things. We'll need fossil fuels and renewables.


This is true and what frustrates me so much about these debates. Team red will attack every type of renewable any time they can as an article of faith, as they do the reason renewables are desired. Team blue will defend and venerate renewables to the uttermost without acknowledging there are costs and limitations. There is definitely need for both and that isn't likely to change soon. Neither is the self destructive partisanship.




RandomElk16 said:


> It's frustrating that Cali has a bunch of regulations for clean air, and then outsources their energy to Utah - who burns coal to produce it. Now we are a solar farm. The reality is, we can produce enough for ourselves. Sick of fueling other states for minimal to no benefit.


Cali has laws that X percent of their energy has to be "green", so they pay for Utah to destroy their deserts to generate it. How complicit is Utah that we are so eager to prostitute ourselves to California for a few bucks and some jobs? Who is worse?


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

I watched a news story this morning on I think CBS that looked into the solar rules in California and the problems they are causing.

The first was not contributing to the upkeep of the current grid. Much like EV's not paying gasoline tax. There has to be some reckoning to keep the whole system viable.

The second is that solar unfairly penalizes the poor. Both for increasing the cost of construction to the point only wealthier people who can afford it are building new housing that requires solar or upgrading their current housing. And also penalizing them for increased cost of buying power from the grid to make up for those not paying with solar.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Our household has been doing Blue Sky since we first moved to Cedar. It's an imperfect solution from an imperfect company yet it seems important to help support efforts when you can. They have done some cool projects like grant money for the YMCA in SLC for solar that saves them tend of thousands a year. Such volunteer contributions help offset the full cost to renewable projects the poorer people can't absorb.

California often has honorable intentions with horrible application. I know I'm not a big fan of them using projects in Utah and border states to satisfy their green energy quotas. At some point people have to accept the cost of the goal, which includes developing the land and the eye sore wind & solar become. Their state should be buying land or using their existing land to meet their power needs, which are immense.

And the incurred cost of monthly energy bills for residents is just another pressure point for a struggling cohort of Californians. Everytime we return to see my wife's community the toll of that reality becomes more obvious, but that's a different subject.

Per getting a say....we do, it's just indirect as is the case with most representative governments. And this forum is saturated with conversations about the difficulty of finding candidates who support our community's diverse and often conflicting preferences. 

The chickens are coming home to roost when it comes to climate change and we will quickly pass the point where the costs of not increasing use of renewables exceeds the incurred cost of such projects. And that includes energy development on public lands. Utah is between a rock and hard place on multiple of these issues: we are relatively conservative and hands off regulation wise but that leads to unfortunate downstream outcomes when it comes to things like energy demands and water. At some point we have to make hard decisions and sacrifices that don't fit neatly into any ideology. Or we don't and kick the can down the road for a younger generation to reap the full weight of the consequences. 

I don't like the eye sore of the vast solar projects to the West and Northwest of Cedar but....🤷‍♂️


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Catherder said:


> Cali has laws that X percent of their energy has to be "green", so they pay for Utah to destroy their deserts to generate it. How complicit is Utah that we are so eager to prostitute ourselves to California for a few bucks and some jobs? Who is worse?


I'm all for cutting the DPRC off from energy. Let them go crazy in their own deserts building solar farms or whatever. They have alot of desert they could use for that purpose. Wouldn't mind shutting off the spigot too while were at it.


----------



## DreadedBowHunter (Sep 22, 2021)

The whole environmental protection thing is a gov scam to control humanity. As the World Economic Forum controllers advertise in the future “you will own nothing and be happy”. It’s all an elitist scam to indoctrinate the public into agreeing to give up all your human rights “for the greater good”. Government Chemtrails daily (look up at the poisonous stripes in the sky) and government lights fire to blame the public so they can babysit and tell everyone what to do. Government means Mind Control, Gubernare Mens in Latin. Most of the public is oblivious to the agenda of the government propagandists. 
Manifest Destiny was when our ancestors were able to steal Native American land and claim it as their own so don’t be surprised that the government dipped the script and is controlling the public land and selling permits to corporations to mine the land for profit etc. 
If the public doesn’t wake up and resist then there will be no future for the people and only gives the wealthy elites full control over every aspect of our lives.
I could go on for ever about all the scams the government deploys against us all.


----------



## Tradguy (Jul 21, 2021)

IMO the basic problem that we are totally missing is that the population growth is outweighing it’s resources. It is estimated that we have only 50 years of oil left and problems will arise much sooner than that. Our government is totally aware of the situation and they are scrambling to come up with a resolution. But until we can admit the necessary changes we better be prepared.


----------



## fobit (Mar 1, 2017)

Since no one knows how the earth creates oil we really don’t know if there is a limit. 
remember the same alarmists were telling us that the north and south poles would be melted by 2017 but that didn’t happen either


----------

