Diane Feinstein bans solar power in the desert. (interstate, Pelosi, highway)

[jcarlilesiu]

Its important that our urban planning and land use policies preserve enviornmental conservation efforts. I don't want our state parks, national forests, and other enviornmental preserves to be breeding grounds for renewable energy projects that are not well thought out.

On the opposite side, they have to go somewhere, and somebody is going to have to see these huge wind turbines. I was driving along I-88 in North Central Illinois last week and saw a wind farm that blew my mind. Hundreds of acres of wind turbines... hundreds of them. Somebody has to look out their window and see them. I hope that Ms. Fienstein recognizes the need for people to preserve their private land just as she sees the importance of preserving our national enviornmental preserves. Something I am pretty sure that many enviornmentalists don't care about unless they are the ones having to look at it.

[Johnny B. Fury]

Originally Posted by Sagran

Before you start crying NIMBY, you ought to read the article. It's about preserving deserts, not NIMBY.

Of course someone would come along and make sweeping judgements about my post. Did you not see the reference to Kennedy and Kerry, two very stanch NIMBY opponents to Green Utopia?

Preservation of deserts in itself is a farce. There's a ****ing reason it's called a desert. Sam Kinison has your answer:

"You live in a desert!
You know what it's going to a be
a hundred years from now?
It's going to be a ****ing desert!
We have deserts in America,
we just don't live in them!"

- Sam Kinison

[jcarlilesiu]

Just so we are all clear about how big these things are:

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by jcarlilesiu

Its important that our urban planning and land use policies preserve enviornmental conservation efforts. I don't want our state parks, national forests, and other enviornmental preserves to be breeding grounds for renewable energy projects that are not well thought out.

On the opposite side, they have to go somewhere, and somebody is going to have to see these huge wind turbines. I was driving along I-88 in North Central Illinois last week and saw a wind farm that blew my mind. Hundreds of acres of wind turbines... hundreds of them. Somebody has to look out their window and see them. I hope that Ms. Fienstein recognizes the need for people to preserve their private land just as she sees the importance of preserving our national enviornmental preserves. Something I am pretty sure that many enviornmentalists don't care about unless they are the ones having to look at it.

The article points out that the Bush administration made an express goals of putting these plants exactly in the Catellus lands. Hmmmmm. There is "something" going on here. Competing political parties are competing over a huge tract of public lands.

The KEY thing to remember is that public lands are essentially FREE when compared to buying up privately owned tracts of land for these plants. It's all about the greed of GS and others, greed to take PUBLIC lands for PRIVATE gain. What else is new? During the Bush years we saw a massive effort to PRIVATIZE PROFITS all the while SOCIALIZING the costs. In this case, the cost is to take priceless pristine natural areas that belong to us and let GS and others slop at the public trough yet again.

[evilnewbie]

I just read the article... didn't know there was such a thing as a "desert tortoise"... wow...

[DC at the Ridge]

I do respect Feinstein's commitment to keep the promises that were made when the funds were raised to originally purchase the property. Given that those promises were no secret, why were developers even making plans for building on this property? That's a serious question. Feinstein is asserting that there are other properties that are suitable for building solar plants, so why were the developers so set on this property? Is it substantially superior to the other properties available? If it is, are there no way concessions can be made? If the technology improves dramatically, so that development would not be an eyesore, would Feinstein and Congress reconsider? Does the plant have to be built at the collection site, or could the plant be built somewhere else, or is this a technological innovation that hasn't happened? Given California's energy goals, are these large plants the best solution? What about subsidizing homeowners? The plants are substantial investments. Is this the best way to invest in renewable energy?

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by sailordave

But I thought the Democratic party politicians were enviromentalist? <sarcasm> Just ask the off shore wind generator developers who wanted to build wind generators off the east coast where the Kennedy family liked to go sailing.

They'll probably be okay with wind farms on the roofs of projects or out in Appalachia. They'll say they're doing it for cheap electric for the poor people.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge

I do respect Feinstein's commitment to keep the promises that were made when the funds were raised to originally purchase the property. Given that those promises were no secret, why were developers even making plans for building on this property? That's a serious question. Feinstein is asserting that there are other properties that are suitable for building solar plants, so why were the developers so set on this property? Is it substantially superior to the other properties available? If it is, are there no way concessions can be made? If the technology improves dramatically, so that development would not be an eyesore, would Feinstein and Congress reconsider? Does the plant have to be built at the collection site, or could the plant be built somewhere else, or is this a technological innovation that hasn't happened? Given California's energy goals, are these large plants the best solution? What about subsidizing homeowners? The plants are substantial investments. Is this the best way to invest in renewable energy?

IMO, the answer to the bolded portion is that the Bush Administration told them they'd be able to do so.

FYI: The GOP has up to a dozen or so internal factions, one of which is a uniquely western slice of the GOP that feels public lands are their private fiefdom for cattle grazing, timber harvesting, mineral extraction and other such usages -- anything BUT letting John Q. Public have a PUBLIC park with a scenic view, fishing hole or campground. Read about all these factions in (former) Senator Bill Bradley's book "The New American Story."

[wedjat]

Did some of you even read the article? Please actually read the posted article before making quick judgments.

For Mrs. Feinstein, creation of the Mojave national monuments would make good on a promise by the government a decade ago to protect desert land donated by an environmental group that had acquired the property from the Catellus Development Corporation.

Clearly Feinstein is not against solar power, that would make no sense now would it? She is upholding that promise for that land to be protected. Oh, & here too:

Mr. Myers stresses that he is not against large-scale solar power plants but prefers that they be concentrated on already disturbed farmlands. In recent months, he said, he has worked with solar developers to find alternative sites.

[chielgirl]

The Europeans are using windmills and seem to have no problem with them, jc.