an even more frightening perspective

[twocoach]

If some counties want to continue to screw themselves and their citizens over by banning this type of construction then that's their choice. Other people are more than happy to swoop in and take advantage. It's a piece of the puzzle as innovations continue to be explored. It would be fascinating to see where the US power grid is in 100 years.

It's hard to paint with a broad brush for some of this stuff...some of the counties or townships I am have dealt with that have banned (or made it really hard) are small and weren't really appealing candidates for development at this stage in the game anyway. Or some counties have a significant amount of land occupied by nature preserves or water (again, wouldn't be great candidates right now anyway).

And I am sure you can find plenty of these counties that are deep red amd are banning it to protect coal or simply to own the libs.



We've got a long way to go before these small % of uncooperative counties are impacting the ability of the country as a whole to make progress with "green energy".

Then why spend the time and effort to ban something that isn't going to happen anyways? At best it's just performance politics.

[twocoach]

do you want to live next door to a 1000 acre solar farm. me neither.

Fortunately there's these things called zoning regulations. I don't want to live near a 1,00 acre cornfield, a 1,000 acre pig farm or a 1,000 acre feed lot, either.

[DeletedUser]

If some counties want to continue to screw themselves and their citizens over by banning this type of construction then that's their choice. Other people are more than happy to swoop in and take advantage. It's a piece of the puzzle as innovations continue to be explored. It would be fascinating to see where the US power grid is in 100 years.

It's hard to paint with a broad brush for some of this stuff...some of the counties or townships I am have dealt with that have banned (or made it really hard) are small and weren't really appealing candidates for development at this stage in the game anyway. Or some counties have a significant amount of land occupied by nature preserves or water (again, wouldn't be great candidates right now anyway).

And I am sure you can find plenty of these counties that are deep red amd are banning it to protect coal or simply to own the libs.



We've got a long way to go before these small % of uncooperative counties are impacting the ability of the country as a whole to make progress with "green energy".

Then why spend the time and effort to ban something that isn't going to happen anyways? At best it's just performance politics.

Because it doesn't take much time or effort to ban something like that in these small rural counties.

[KUTradition]

exactly

then, the banners can tout “fighting the woke agenda” to their constituents

(cuts off nose to spite face)

[DeletedUser]

exactly

then, the banners can tout “fighting the woke agenda” to their constituents

(cuts off nose to spite face)

Some of it is probably that, for sure.

Some of it is an area with hunting tourism or nature preserves. Where converting the land to that type of use in many areas doesn't make sense.


That is a "go team" article. Those counties are a non issue at this point. It's just meant to enrage that we aren't all the same. Or at least that's how it feels to me.


The real issue, is not availability of land, it's how the government wants to help incentivize the development of these projects. Sometimes they just want to "appear" that they are trying to help, when the applicability of their incentives limits the people who can utilize them to a miniscule group.

[KUTradition]

exactly

then, the banners can tout “fighting the woke agenda” to their constituents

(cuts off nose to spite face)

Some of it is probably that, for sure.

Some of it is an area with hunting tourism or nature preserves. Where converting the land to that type of use in many areas doesn't make sense.


That is a "go team" article. Those counties are a non issue at this point. It's just meant to enrage that we aren't all the same. Or at least that's how it feels to me.


The real issue, is not availability of land, it's how the government wants to help incentivize the development of these projects. Sometimes they just want to "appear" that they are trying to help, when the applicability of their incentives limits the people who can utilize them to a miniscule group.

i didn’t read the article

my general stance is that such legislation is nothing more than political performative art because any such projects, be they on public or private land, would have to go through rigorous approval processes, which at any point could be railroaded by the same legislators that push these bills

i really don’t see how this could be seen as anything else

[twocoach]

exactly

then, the banners can tout “fighting the woke agenda” to their constituents

(cuts off nose to spite face)

Some of it is probably that, for sure.

Some of it is an area with hunting tourism or nature preserves. Where converting the land to that type of use in many areas doesn't make sense.


That is a "go team" article. Those counties are a non issue at this point. It's just meant to enrage that we aren't all the same. Or at least that's how it feels to me.


The real issue, is not availability of land, it's how the government wants to help incentivize the development of these projects. Sometimes they just want to "appear" that they are trying to help, when the applicability of their incentives limits the people who can utilize them to a miniscule group.

i didn’t read the article

my general stance is that such legislation is nothing more than political performative art because any such projects, be they on public or private land, would have to go through rigorous approval processes, which at any point could be railroaded by the same legislators that push these bills

i really don’t see how this could be seen as anything else

Yeah, there's a difference between "you can't do that type of project on this specific plot of land because it is better used for hunting tourism or as a nature preserve" and "clean energy projects are banned from our county, period".

Besides, I thought conservatives didn't like the government telling them what they can and cannot do with the land that they own?

[DeletedUser]

I am not sure there is actually that much "clean energy projects are banned from our country, period" going on when it comes to solar and wind development.

On the list of obstacles and challenges, this probably isn't top 5 for the majority of solar developers/investors who are actually attempting to do these projects.

[MICHHAWK]

if my neighbors want to lease their farmland to a solar company. so they can put up a 1000 acre solar farm. i do not approve.

then the township zoning committee votes it down. then the solar company sues the township.

[Overlander]

if my neighbors want to lease their farmland to a solar company. so they can put up a 1000 acre solar farm. i do not approve.

Explain your discomfort

[Sparko]

Mich wants the temperature peaking at 130-degrees over his bleached bones.

[ousdahl]

Auction of Colorado River water nets $4.7 million

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/auction- ... 7-million/

wut?

[TDub]

if my neighbors want to lease their farmland to a solar company. so they can put up a 1000 acre solar farm. i do not approve.

Explain your discomfort

we've got to do something.

I do think we nees to integrate them into the already existing structures somehow though.

They installed a huge solar farm kind of by me....it is a fucking ugly as sin. Its blinding at the wrong time of day too. It took away a nice looking natural landscape and added this absolutely hideous less instead.

All of our power here is from dams which, are fairly clean (though there's another discussion to be had about their impact as well).

Worst part? everybody's power bills went up not insignificantly because the costs of the build were, of course passed on to the customer.

Worst Worst part? latest update is that the panels will fail years before they are paid off and need to be replaced. Resulting in another power bill
increase.


I get the resistance to solar farms. I also get that something had to change.

[KUTradition]

our patterns of consumption have to change (insert dead horse getting beaten gif)

but that ain’t happening

[Shirley]

California is using two innovative ways to hold onto more storm runoff and improve its groundwater storage.

[zsn]

Unfortunately, our “natural” water storage system is in jeopardy due to climate change. In California, the “free” dam was the snowpack. But the snow level is going higher and more water falls as rain rather than snow. Something needs to be done. I don’t know what that is.

Speaking of solar, many parking lots are now putting up solar panels as shades creating a win-win situation. Most city owned lots, like schools, libraries etc have done this over the past few years.

[TDub]

that's a much place for solar panels.

you have parking lots in San Fran? I never saw 1 free parking space in general in that city ha

[zsn]

The better comeback would have been “there’s sun in San Francisco?” I don’t know which is scarce, sun or parking lots!!

I live down off the fog bank that both are plentiful.

[ousdahl]

our patterns of consumption have to change (insert dead horse getting beaten gif)

but that ain’t happening

I mean this as matter-of-fact and non-controversially as possible when I say this is the essence of so much of what Qusdahl tries to articulate.

But, yes, I know I know, dead horse.

[TDub]

The better comeback would have been “there’s sun in San Francisco?” I don’t know which is scarce, sun or parking lots!!

I live down off the fog bank that both are plentiful.

it wasn't a comeback, just an observation.