6 ms·

> The Interior Department in a statement Friday afternoon said that the solar developers and BLM had “agreed to change their approach for the Esmeralda 7 Solar

> The Interior Department in a statement Friday afternoon said that the solar developers and BLM had “agreed to change their approach for the Esmeralda 7 Solar Project in Nevada. Instead of pursuing a programmatic level environmental analysis, the applicants will now have the option to submit individual project proposals to the BLM to more effectively analyze potential impacts.” What does this even mean? Why the hell does it have to be so hard to get anything done in this country? > “Friends of Nevada Wilderness is thrilled that this poorly sited project is dead,” said Shaaron Netherton, the group’s executive director. “In the push to get this particular project through, the BLM ignored the importance of this region’s cultural significance, biological significance and the fact that it is one of the most intact landscapes remaining in Nevada,” Netherton added. I will also save some ire for these people. This is literally desert wasteland sitting alongside a freeway. It's hard to believe that someone spent time and money on this cause.

dpe82 1y ago
NIMBYs are everywhere.
api 1y ago
If you look deeply into it, it would not surprise me to learn that some kind of natural gas industry group bankrolls these activists. Of course maybe I’m overthinking it and assuming a conspiracy where stupidity is a simpler explanation. There were climate activists protesting wind farms in Germany.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  People will protest literally any use of land at all. They imagine the current conditions are pristine perfection, "unspoiled", and see any human activity upon it as something to be opposed to.
- hdseggbj 1y ago
  Solar companies fund the initiative, so it being funded or by whom is irrelevant. Everyone involved is motivated by self interest.
qiqitori 1y ago
Not talking about Trump here, as I very much doubt he cares about jack shit. Some conservationists are happy that the project was canceled. Sure, the best place to put solar is probably on top of existing structures, not in "one of the most intact landscapes remaining" in the area (if that is even true). But what if just roofs isn't realistic, or just not enough? Could they have chosen a better site from an ecological perspective? Did someone deliberately choose the site to pit one kind of environmentalist against another kind of environmentalist? When you try and think like a politician whose only objective is to "look good" to different camps at the same time, it doesn't seem that outlandish an idea. I'd just like to tell the conservationists that mining coal or oil isn't exactly great for the landscape and animals in the mine's area either, and burning it is bad for all kinds of ecosystems around the world.
- dfxm12 1y ago
  Trump has gone out of his way to both defund renewables like solar and wind and also prop up coal. His actions suggest he probably does care.
  - qiqitori 1y ago
    I meant, he doesn't care about the conservationists.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - dalyons 1y ago
    He cares about the bribes and grift he is personally receiving , and that’s about it.
aeonfox 1y ago
> This is literally desert wasteland sitting alongside a freeway "Desert wasteland" teems with life, just maybe not the kind that most people care about. Land use is one of the sticking points of the energy transition, both for agriculture and biodiversity. One of the only plusses to nuclear power is reduced land use, though it has it's own water use and waste issues. Much better alternatives are rooftop solar and residential batteries, and grid scale batteries located closer to where they are needed for industry, commerce, and high-density housing. It really kills the need for these large scale deployments and the costly transmission lines to service them.
- igor47 1y ago
  We need both! rooftop solar alone is not going to solve our energy needs. If projects like this don't get built, the realistic alternative in the US these days is burning coal, which is both expensive and destructive to the ecology and to health.
  - aeonfox 1y ago
    About 3/4 of my rooftop solar goes back into the grid. A neighborhood grid-scale battery could sop that up while the market is cheap and dispatch it when the sun is down. Even if I had a battery, it would quickly saturate. Rooftop solar can deliver far more than most households can use. And let's not forget parking lots and commercial real estate. With enough incentive these places can become mini power plants of their own, and provide a nice little passive income for the land owner.
    - jopsen 1y ago
      Whenever I look at rooftop solar (Denmark) 2/3 of the cost is easily installation. Add to that the risk that I'll have to replace the roof early. Rooftop seems expensive, if not done as part of a roof replacement. And even then it's expensive. If we had deserts that would be a great place to put up solar.
      - aeonfox 1y ago
potato3732842 1y ago
>What does this even mean? Why the hell does it have to be so hard to get anything done in this country? Because some engineering specialty lobbyist wants it to be that way to drive business to his clients, he cooks up some narrative about how more review will save the planet and HN takes it at face value. You see this crap with every sort of permitting. Except perhaps in the rare cases it constrains the biggest entities (e.g. DuPont dumping crap in the river or whatever) all these BS processes and requirements do is raise the richness floor of who can play the game. The BigCos can pay for the pretexts to get the permission they need to keep doing whatever, free from the competition from everyone down-market who can't afford that.
- hdseggbj 1y ago
  They also enrich the parasitic bureaucracy. Climate change is a scam. Not because it isn't changing, of course it's changing, but humans can't and won't change it back, nor should they bother trying. What they should do, scientifically, is adapt, like all organisms. The irony is those demanding we change our behavior to reverse climate change are the ones actually fighting to keep humans from changing by adapting to changing climatic conditions, and so they are the biggest threat to human survival as a species. We're gonna burn every deep of oil. Petroleum use goes up every year, regardless.
- dylan604 1y ago
  > all these BS processes and requirements do is raise the richness floor of who can play the game. This is usually preceded by those that can afford to have played got to that point because they too did not follow any regulations when they started. They are only now willing to follow regulations because they can afford to knowing that it is a worthy expense to keep new competition from starting

dpe82 1y ago

NIMBYs are everywhere.

api 1y ago

If you look deeply into it, it would not surprise me to learn that some kind of natural gas industry group bankrolls these activists. Of course maybe I’m overthinking it and assuming a conspiracy where stupidity is a simpler explanation. There were climate activists protesting wind farms in Germany.

zdragnar 1y ago
People will protest literally any use of land at all. They imagine the current conditions are pristine perfection, "unspoiled", and see any human activity upon it as something to be opposed to.
hdseggbj 1y ago
Solar companies fund the initiative, so it being funded or by whom is irrelevant. Everyone involved is motivated by self interest.

qiqitori 1y ago

Not talking about Trump here, as I very much doubt he cares about jack shit. Some conservationists are happy that the project was canceled. Sure, the best place to put solar is probably on top of existing structures, not in "one of the most intact landscapes remaining" in the area (if that is even true). But what if just roofs isn't realistic, or just not enough? Could they have chosen a better site from an ecological perspective? Did someone deliberately choose the site to pit one kind of environmentalist against another kind of environmentalist? When you try and think like a politician whose only objective is to "look good" to different camps at the same time, it doesn't seem that outlandish an idea. I'd just like to tell the conservationists that mining coal or oil isn't exactly great for the landscape and animals in the mine's area either, and burning it is bad for all kinds of ecosystems around the world.

dfxm12 1y ago
Trump has gone out of his way to both defund renewables like solar and wind and also prop up coal. His actions suggest he probably does care.
- qiqitori 1y ago
  I meant, he doesn't care about the conservationists.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- dalyons 1y ago
  He cares about the bribes and grift he is personally receiving , and that’s about it.

aeonfox 1y ago

> This is literally desert wasteland sitting alongside a freeway "Desert wasteland" teems with life, just maybe not the kind that most people care about. Land use is one of the sticking points of the energy transition, both for agriculture and biodiversity. One of the only plusses to nuclear power is reduced land use, though it has it's own water use and waste issues. Much better alternatives are rooftop solar and residential batteries, and grid scale batteries located closer to where they are needed for industry, commerce, and high-density housing. It really kills the need for these large scale deployments and the costly transmission lines to service them.

igor47 1y ago
We need both! rooftop solar alone is not going to solve our energy needs. If projects like this don't get built, the realistic alternative in the US these days is burning coal, which is both expensive and destructive to the ecology and to health.
- aeonfox 1y ago
  About 3/4 of my rooftop solar goes back into the grid. A neighborhood grid-scale battery could sop that up while the market is cheap and dispatch it when the sun is down. Even if I had a battery, it would quickly saturate. Rooftop solar can deliver far more than most households can use. And let's not forget parking lots and commercial real estate. With enough incentive these places can become mini power plants of their own, and provide a nice little passive income for the land owner.
  - jopsen 1y ago
    Whenever I look at rooftop solar (Denmark) 2/3 of the cost is easily installation. Add to that the risk that I'll have to replace the roof early. Rooftop seems expensive, if not done as part of a roof replacement. And even then it's expensive. If we had deserts that would be a great place to put up solar.
    - aeonfox 1y ago

potato3732842 1y ago

>What does this even mean? Why the hell does it have to be so hard to get anything done in this country? Because some engineering specialty lobbyist wants it to be that way to drive business to his clients, he cooks up some narrative about how more review will save the planet and HN takes it at face value. You see this crap with every sort of permitting. Except perhaps in the rare cases it constrains the biggest entities (e.g. DuPont dumping crap in the river or whatever) all these BS processes and requirements do is raise the richness floor of who can play the game. The BigCos can pay for the pretexts to get the permission they need to keep doing whatever, free from the competition from everyone down-market who can't afford that.

hdseggbj 1y ago
They also enrich the parasitic bureaucracy. Climate change is a scam. Not because it isn't changing, of course it's changing, but humans can't and won't change it back, nor should they bother trying. What they should do, scientifically, is adapt, like all organisms. The irony is those demanding we change our behavior to reverse climate change are the ones actually fighting to keep humans from changing by adapting to changing climatic conditions, and so they are the biggest threat to human survival as a species. We're gonna burn every deep of oil. Petroleum use goes up every year, regardless.
dylan604 1y ago
> all these BS processes and requirements do is raise the richness floor of who can play the game. This is usually preceded by those that can afford to have played got to that point because they too did not follow any regulations when they started. They are only now willing to follow regulations because they can afford to knowing that it is a worthy expense to keep new competition from starting