Native Americans sue U.S. over solar power plant in desert

[Ginto]

Source: LA Times

A Native American tribe has filed a lawsuit against the federal government in an attempt to block construction of Tessera Solar's Imperial Valley solar power plant in the Sonoran Desert.

The 709-megawatt solar farm, planned for more than 6,000 acres of public land near El Centro, wrapped up its approval process in October.

But the Quechan tribe alleged in a complaint against the Interior Department that the installation could damage "cultural and biological resources of significance."

The tribe said that department officials ignored Quechan concerns and rushed through or skipped important permitting steps, violating federal law.

State and federal agencies have fast-tracked several major solar projects, aiming to break ground by the end of the year to take advantage of expiring federal stimulus funds.

More than 28,000 SunCatcher solar dishes intended for the site could harm a region known for the flat-tailed horned lizard, which plays a key role in the tribe's creation mythology, the complaint said. more

Read more: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/04/business/la-fi-solar-tribe-20101105

[DFab420]

1. ....

Really?

Our country is falling apart at the seams.

People are out of work and we are trying to change our energy dependence.

But nooooo the flat-tailed horned lizard!!!

Which by the way have a range from Mexico to the deserts of Colorado.. (http://www.californiaherps.com/lizards/pages/p.mcallii.html)

I'm sorry but that's fucking stupid.

[Ginto]

3. Don't know if it's that simple.

You forget about the Quechan people and their claim to the land. Horned lizards have very specific dietary requirements so I wouldn't be so quick to start eliminating their natural habitat.

[sofa king]

62. I know for sure it's not.

As you suggest, it has a lot to do with claims to land, and not necessarily this land.

In roughly 2003, the Bush Administration railroaded through an approval for a nasty gold strip-mining operation on sacred Quechan land. They violated a dozen laws to do it--par for the course, really, since at that point Bush's Interior department was orchestrating criminal operations such as this against tribes almost every day. Look up "Glamis Imperial."

The last thing I remember about the whole thing is that the Quechan, realizing that they were powerless to enforce the law themselves or otherwise protect what they had, adopted a "forward defense," which was to sue the living shit out of anything or anyone that came near. Among other things, they targeted recreational off-roading near their reservation. This incident may also be related.

I'm not really at liberty to say more about it, except that it would be a good idea to look into the Glamis story again before one pronounces judgment on what the Quechan are up to.

[yellowcanine]

11. Well the Quechans claim Federal law was violated in expediting the permits.

A judge needs to decide if that is true. The law still needs to be followed even if it is a good idea. Nothing stupid about that.

[CreekDog]

17. do you want them to violate the law?

just wondering.

this isn't a judgment call, it's the law to protect species.

[texastoast]

21. I bet you don't care much for spotted owls then also?

And you really need to check on the populations in the range. Horny toads have been going missing since the 1970s.

I lived in the middle of their range and they are just wonderful creatures, keeping the brown and red ant populations under control. In the 1970s, a fifty-cent bounty was placed on them because at the time it was thought that taking them to New York to work on NY's ant "problems" would work. Needless to say, it did not (they died the first winter), but the population of the lizards in Texas was decimated. It has not recovered, due in part to the arrival of fire ants to complement human stupidity.

I have a Texas horny toad conservation license plate that says "Keep Texas Wild."

I completely understand what the Natives are feeling. We need to address these concerns.

[thereismore]

2. Solar dishes threaten creation mythology? Religion again. Fuck that. nt

[AlbertCat]

23. Solar dishes threaten creation mythology?

BINGO!

Native American religionists are just as stupid and ridiculous as Christian or Muslim ....or any other religionists. Just because they're Native Americans, doesn't make them all "spiritual" and cool y'know.

And am I supposed to believe that this lizard, that apparently eats ants, is gonna be endangered by solar panels. Do solar panels make the ants go away? If so, I want one in my kitchen!

[bluedigger]

4. I support the Quechan in this action.

I am for solar energy and its continued development, but this action by the Quechan exposes the government's abdication of it's responsibilities to enforce environmental rules and regulations. There is no excuse not to perform the EIS properly, and allowing developers to sidestep such requirements (to increase profits) will lead to preventable disasters. Or have we forgotten the Gulf so soon?

(Disclaimer: I am an unemployed cultural resources scientist.)

[Tansy_Gold]

5. I'd much rather see PV installations on every rooftop in

Maricopa, Pinal, and Pima counties in Arizona.

But that would preclude some corporation making money on the sunshine. :puke:


TG, NTY

[JDPriestly]

6. We have a great roof in Los Angeles, but we could not afford

to pay for a solar collector. Too bad. Why doesn't the government or some private company just lease the roofs of folks in Southern California and put collectors on them. After all, mineral rights can be separated from the owners of the property.

[bluedigger]

7. On the surface, I like your idea, but...

I suspect the maintenance requirements would be a logistical and financial nightmare. It's one thing for individual property owners to provide for their own needs by installing solar arrays, and assuming responsibility for their upkeep, but I don't think it would be feasible for a single entity to implement on a widespread scale. Every storm would require inspection and repair, which would involve having access to the property, etc... I just don't see it happening.:shrug:

[AlbertCat]

24. but I don't think it would be feasible for a single entity to implement on a widespread scale.

Yeah...'cause there no way to maintain power lines, or gas lines or water lines or cable lines, or satellite dishes or read meters that go to individual homes! It's just not feasible! :eyes:






cheesus! :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[PavePusher]

33. Lines usually buried in the ground where they enter private property.

Did you miss the operative word "storms"?

Solar arrays are exposed to the elements. Sort of an engineering requirement...

[bluedigger]

37. Simple world you live in, isn't it.

Way to ignore my specific caveats and throw strawmen at my conclusion.:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

25. So, in the contract, you give access to the party leasing your roof

for repair and maintenance. The electricity and telephone companies have to inspect their equipment at the street already. It wouldn't be that hard to inspect roofs.

We don't have very many storms here in California. If tree branches are kept away from the roofs, it is unlikely that the roofs would be damaged in storms. Earthquakes would be a greater risk, but then a big earthquake would devastate solar panels out in the desert anyway. It's really six of one, half a dozen of the other.

And the homeowners could be asked to report storm damage in the neighborhood. Trust me, that would not be a big problem in Southern California. We pray for rain, believe it or not.

[bluedigger]

32. I think maintenance would be pretty difficult.

Currently, don't utilities' responsibilities end at the street? If I blow a fuse, I fix it myself or call an electrician, for example. Roof inspections require ladders/bucket trucks, people in your yard/on your roof, and all the liability that that entails. Throw in rental units and absentee owners, etc... People are already up in arms over the wireless meters being installed by utilities with government grants; dangerous electronic emissions, don't you know?:eyes:

I do believe these are soluble problems, but I think the programs should be initiated on a voluntary basis, and at a regional, rather than a national level. Sometimes economies of scale and the free market actually are the solution, with a good nudge in the right direction. I do know my friends back in Maine are not going to jump at the chance to subsidize southern Californian's air conditioning needs. It is a shortsighted and parochial viewpoint, I know, and that is exactly how opponents will frame the debate.

[JDPriestly]

43. My thought is that local electricity companies or private entities

could install and service the units. They could have an easement or enter into some sort of limited use agreement with the homeowner for the purpose and make some sort of deal with the homeowner.

I suspect that most houses in our area would produce more electricity than they would use. We live in a zone 10 area (as defined by my on-line gardening website) of Los Angeles and have no air conditioning. Our house is well insulated, and we have trees on our lot that cool our property. We have a southern exposure in the front of the house where we spend daylight hours, and a northern exposure in the back where we sleep. It's great. I lived in Mobile, Alabama at one point in my life. The heat there is much worse than here. Living there without air conditioning is much more unpleasant than living here without it.

The issue of private enterprise does not enter the equation in Los Angeles. That is because our water and power are provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, a city agency. The nonsense about private enterprise being so wonderful was disproved when we learned that our Los Angeles Department of Water and Power provided us with much better electricity service during the Enron squeeze a few years back than did private companies that serve neighboring cities in the region.

As for the maintenance, why would anyone want to pay to put a solar panel on their house if the maintenance required is so complicated? I am assuming that the company or agency leasing the space for the solar panels would provide good quality panels that they could service.

The right to the energy produced could belong wholly to the company or agency with a buy-back of energy by the homeowner perhaps with a rebate available to the homeowner for part of the homeowner's energy bills as a compensation for the permission to use the roof. That would discourage homeowners from using too much energy.

Alternatively, the company or agency could require the homeowner to buy back the energy from the company at normal electricity use rates and compensate the homeowner for the use of the roof in some other way.

Other terms could be offered for the use of the roofs. Some homeowners might prefer to enter into purchase agreements with the electricity company. I am thinking that the scenario would more likely be that L.A. would provide electricity to go into a nationwide grid to ease the pressure on the Northeast and other parts of the country especially in the winter. That could be a profit-center for our city as well as the private energy companies in the area. No reason that independent entrepreneurs couldn't compete to provide the energy to the City and private providers.

I understand that Iowa produces quite a bit of wind energy. Having lived there also as a child, that is quite understandable to me. My grandfather had a windmill on his farm that pumped water to the livestock. And the technology then was primitive.

I think that each part of the country has to pitch in to make us energy-independent. So many of our greatest threats are due to our dependence on foreign oil for domestic energy needs.

[bluedigger]

44. Thanks for the thoughtful response, JDP!

What do you think this is? A discussion board?:rofl:

Good points all! On private enterprise - I agree that providers don't need to be for profit. And that public utilities are probably better. My comment on the free market was more directed at the manufacturers of the equipment needed. My fault for not being clearer.

My thoughts on maintenance are simply that solar panels are relatively fragile and will require quite a bit of adjustment and repair to retain efficiency. It's easier to do that when they are centralized, but by no means a deal-stopper. In time, designs will be more robust, as well. I just have a vision of Larry the Cable Guy driving around with a ladder in the back of his truck. I'm not a big fan of the private contractor economic model in that regard...:shrug:

No other quibbles.:fistbump:

[Demeter]

73. So It's a Jobs Program, Too

What's your problem?

[ProudDad]

50. You don't know too much about solar installations, do you

There's no "upkeep" required with a PV solar system like the one on my roof...

Other than a sponge and some water once or twice a year to wash off the dirt... :shrug:

[Tansy_Gold]

8. Better yet --

why doesn't the government PUT PV systems on the roofs with the ability to transfer excess onto a national grid. Anybody who wants to be part of the project, up to an individual property limit, applies. Equipment is installed, electricity is generated, excess goes out to the grid, or comes in off the grid when it's needed, and voila! lots and lots and lots of barrels of oil saved.

But no corporation would profit from it, so it will never happen. too bad, so sad, end of USA.



What a bunch of fuckwits.



TG, NTY

[bluedigger]

10. I don't think the country would be very enthusiastic about that.

The current mood isn't exactly favorable to the creation of a nationalized utility. I believe the current meme is less government, not more. No corporate or public support is going to make for a difficult pitch to sell to congress. Besides, it makes too much sense.:(

[Tansy_Gold]

15. We already have -- essentially -- a national grid

It wouldn't be a nationalized electric utility, just the grid.

So I apply for an installation on my house here in Arizona. It gets hooked up to the local utility, Salt River Project. I use my solar-generated electricity, and when my PV cells produce more than I can use, the excess flows through my meter onto SRP's grid and comes off my bill. When I'm not getting enough from my panels, I draw back from SRP and pay for it.

Since SRP buys power from other utilities, there is a "grid" that links them. We have power plants in AZ that feed CA, etc., etc., etc.

Hook it all together -- and improving the utility grid is after all part of Obama's plan -- and you've got plenty of independence from foreign oil, jobs involved in manufacturing and installing and maintaining the PV installations (insist that they be made in US). What you DON'T have is power companies making big bucks, and that's the real fly in the ointment.



TG

[bluedigger]

16. You are right that the grid is in already in place.

It sounded to me like you wanted a crew of government employees to show up at the house with a truck full of solar panels and do the installs. That would be a pretty big government agency, don't you think?

I guess the alternative would be to give people vouchers, or we could just make it mandatory and fine people who don't comply...

[Tansy_Gold]

22. Vouchers or

1. Tax credit 100% that comes directly off your income tax AND self-employment tax (FICA/social security/medicare payments for the self-employed) with unlimited carry-over up to a pre-set limit. Be generous and make that limit $100,000 per primary residence, $50,000 other residences. Tax credit balance carries over to new owner if property is sold.

2. Vouchers for low-income home owners, owners of rental property.

3. Tax credits for commercial real estate.

The point is to provide an incentive for people to do it. This would also spur manufacturing and drive prices down.


But what do I know?



TG, NTY

[Ginto]

27. As long as they didn't have to come into the home for maintenance, this is a great idea.

I'm sure some sort of ladder could be installed on buildings to facilitate maintenance and inspection though.

[Tansy_Gold]

28. It's voluntary, not mandatory

The property owner owns and therefore is responsible for maintaining the system.

These systems already exist, but they are expensive. My suggestion is that there should be a serious federal (and/or state) subsidy to bring down the cost.


It's really very simple.


TG, NTY

[ProudDad]

52. There's no more "maintenence" required for a PV solar system

than there is for you flat panel TV...

It's all SOLID STATE -- no moving parts, once well installed it's good for decades...

Just sponge off the panels once every year or two to let the sunshine through...

[Ginto]

57. My flat panel TV is not outside.

Yet. :)

[ProudDad]

64. My solar panels and controller are...

And they're very happy... :hi:

[bluedigger]

30. You know plenty, TG!

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?state=us

;)

[ProudDad]

51. "make it mandatory and fine people who don't comply."

sounds like a better idea than turning the Earth into an uninhabitable environment...

Another Venus, anyone?

[Zenlitened]

29. Ding! Ain't that the truth?

[ProudDad]

46. Exactly!!!

And neighborhood sized solar concentrators...

These large installations lose up to 50% of the power generated through line losses...

Just like the train load of coal use to generate electricity for Tucson in Springerville...

[Crowman1979]

9. What about that giant bombing range in southern AZ?

That land looks rather unused. If the panels were built there, than tribal sovereignty would not be an issue.

[bluedigger]

14. Here are two reasons.

First, bombing ranges tend to be very hazardous places - in addition to the native flora and fauna they tend to have a lot of unexploded ordinance laying around. (I used to be in field artillery in the army - I would guess as much as 5% of munitions fail to detonate as designed.) It would require a tremendous (expensive) effort to clear the area and make it safe for other uses.

Second, the whole point of the suit seems to be to make the government comply with its own environmental regulations and procedures. I'm glad that through treaty law the Quechan have standing to bring suit in this case. It's a good thing on principle, whether one cares about their creation myth or not. If the government follows its obligations in this respect, the developers will eventually be able to move forward with their plans regardless, most likely, with minor modifications.

[Tansy_Gold]

31. One big reason might be

That they still use it.

[bluedigger]

34. LOL!

Oh yeah. There's that.

:rofl:

[Tansy_Gold]

36. BMGR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_M._Goldwater_Air_Force_Range

It is used for bombing practice by United States Air Force pilots in A-10s and F-16s, and Marine Corps pilots in F-18s and AV-8B Harriers.

[ProudDad]

53. And lately by the (noisy) goddamn

United Arab Emerites and Dutch A.F. F16 pilots...

Driving down our already plummeting "property values"...

With the threat of the goddamn F35 hanging over our heads...twice the noise...

The sound of the dying Empire!

Piss on ALL Flags!!!

[hunter]

12. Destroying 6,000 acres of desert for an insignificant amount of electricity is stupid.

If we must build this feel-good greenwash crap, then put it over parking lots, soon-to-be-wasteland desert residential developments, strip mines, or some other land we've already trashed.

[PavePusher]

35. It would not "destroy" anything.

Change, yes. And 6K acres of solar works would produce more than "an insignificant amount of electricity".

[hunter]

38. Have you ever seen the underside of a solar farm?

The natural environment is destroyed.

[PavePusher]

45. We've got one on my AF base.

You can have a fine ecology under the panels, but yes, it will be different from the original.

Not destroyed. Different.

P.S., they are also installing panels on the roofs of the new housing that is replacing the old, condemned stuff. Go Air Force!

[ProudDad]

47. Before those panels were erected

as a PR ploy by a not universally liked installation here in Tucson...

The "ecology" on D-M just like all military installations was toxic...

Materially and psychically...

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Desertrose]

60. Why don't you?

[Codeine]

69. When it comes to ecologies,

"different" is "destroyed." Animals adapted to one environment may not compete well in the different one. And the tiny-ass amount of electricity gained isn't worth it.

The desert is a complex, delicate, beautiful ecosystem.

[Ginto]

59. Kind of like building a strip mall. The ecology just changes.

The native fauna are gone, but rats, opposums, cockroaches, etc. can still live there. Good grief.

[XemaSab]

41. So much word

n/t

[Codeine]

70. "Feelgood greenwash crap" EXACTLY! +1 nt

[elleng]

13. Sad and/but very interesting example of potentially conflicting interests we face,

when we try to do good.

[sulphurdunn]

18. The law requires that the natural world

be considered in all land use decisions on public land. That's enlightened. That's how it should be. Furthermore, this tribe is exercising its legal rights under the law. That's something else that is enlightened and should be defended. The notion that government should suspend its own laws to create short term employment is a false choice and a bad precedent.

[Ginto]

19. The truth of the matter is that we gave these tribes land that we never thought would be of any use.

Now we are suddenly needing them for resources and like true "Amurikans" we are bending/breaking the rules to get what we want.

[bluedigger]

20. Um, yup.

Stupid treaty obligations!:rofl:

[Safetykitten]

26. I love the East coast mentality of "it's just desert land, and there is so much".

Well there is not "so much" and blading thaousands of acres and destroying land for electricity is fucking nuts. How many rooftops can have panels? How many massive rooftops of industrial buildings and other huge flat roofed structures can be used? Hundreds of thousands.

The desert is not the empty slate for endless rows of solar collectors just becuase it is perceived it has no value ecologically.

[Nihil]

67. Isn't that the truth though ...?

> I love the East coast mentality of "it's just desert land, and there is so much".

Combination of NIMBY and sheer ignorance.

> destroying land for electricity is fucking nuts.

Quite apart from your suggestions of rooftop panels - a perfectly good idea - what
people should be considering is reducing their goddamn wasteful consumption so that
not only will NO additional power (solar or whatever) be required but a lot of the
existing polluting fossil-fuel generators can be shut down.

:grr:

[Lorien]

39. I like this idea better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4L18zOEYI&feature=player_embedded better road surface, pays for itself, creates thousands of jobs, performs multiple functions, doesn't disturb squat.

[ProudDad]

49. "doesn't disturb squat."?

If there's ANYTHING we don't need, it's more roads...

And more freakin' cars...

Even electric cars use huge amounts of resources and energy to BUILD -- they only save about 10% overall compared to fossil fuel burning cars...

The point is WE DON'T NEED 200,000,000 cars!!!

Now beef up the already existing criss-cross of rails in USAmerica with solar technology installed along the right-of-way to run electric trains, and dig up the fucking roads and highways and you've got something...

Of course, even then, it takes a lot of resources to build the panels, etc.

There's NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!

[Ginto]

58. How many solar panels does it use to power a locomotive?

I like your idea to expand rail. What we need is more high speed trains, but I realize that it will be hard to accomplish.

[ProudDad]

63. Not as hard as the die off will be when Catastrophic Global Climate Destabilization takes full hold.

We're just seeing the beginning of it in Pakistan, Haiti, New Orleans, the great USAmerican Southwest, etc, etc, etc.

But, to directly answer your question...

It's hard to tell. It appears that this Seimans trainset delivered to the Chinese uses a "tractive effort" of 8800kW. If that's in any way analogous to the power requirement, and the average commercial grade panel produces around 250watts then one would need the output of 35,200 panels to power it. If each panel is about 4 feet by 3 feet (12 sq feet) than we're talking about 422,400 sq ft of panels to power the train.

I think solar concentrators sited a few miles apart along the right-of-way would work better...

[Lorien]

66. Did you even WATCH the video? They would replace EXISTING roads

as for the rest of your rant; I've been advocating a National MagLev monorail system with light rail connectors for years now. I prefer traveling in Europe where one doesn't need a car. But Americans will never give up all of their vehicles and we need roads that don't need replacing every ten years. We also need clean, green renewable energy. These roads are made primarily out of glass and garbage, provide 3x more power than the United States uses, and would both pay for themselves and provide much needed jobs. Yes, there IS a free lunch!!

[and-justice-for-all]

40. Making use of other wise unusable land should not be an issue..

is some one living there?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jRHP5ipscBg/S67rLz_R90I/AAAAAAAAAGA/hCXSrDOVFmU/s640/Tessera+Site_google2.jpg

[XemaSab]

42. Wherever that is

it's not the site.

This project will be in California.

[ProudDad]

48. And entire desert ecology is living there

Along with the Humans who filed the lawsuit...

It's time humans stop pissing on the environment that supports them...

Or else!

[Xithras]

61. There is no such thing as unusable land.

And I remind you that this is the same state that was given the choice between "Environment vs. Thousands of jobs and billions in extra taxes" last week. We chose the environment. It's one of the reasons I love California.

The Earth does not exist solely for our use. "Unusable" land is land used by nature for its own purposes. Sometimes, trees (and tortoises) are more important than human needs.

For what it's worth, I don't think that anyone living east of the Rockies should even get a voice in this debate. If you haven't spend any time in the deserts, you can't possibly understand their value. And, quite honestly, you're not going to be a user of that electricity anyway.

[Codeine]

72. A shit-ton of animals live there. nt

[Lagomorph]

55. We've stolen enough land...

from the Indians. Californians use most of the open land for off road vehicles. I just have a problem with using so much land for fuel intensive and destructive recreation, while confiscating even more land for additional power that the Indians would have little use for.

[blindpig]

56. Exactly, when will it end?

[Lagomorph]

65. Not to mention...

...we're paying millions of dollars to farmers, not to grow food. So what's wrong with putting THAT land to productive use?

We already have vast holdings reserved for wilderness. While it was not done as an entirely anti-business initiative, it renders the land and it's resources unusable for economic growth. Keeping all that land off limits, then grabbing more land that Indians find culturally significant sounds disrespectful and mean spirited.

I'd rather see the cities that are compatible with solar or wind power expand their energy footprint within their own boundaries, before we go dozing more of the desert and covering the land with infrastructure.

If the Indians want to build a solar facility and sell us the power, I'd be happy to support funding it, but not against their will.

If I understand correctly, in Hawaii, the government subsidizes hot water solar panels on homes, then becomes a lien holder on the property. That seems reasonable. It wouldn't work everywhere, but in fair climates, it would be advantageous. It means some areas would get funding, while other areas wouldn't be suitable.

[Vinca]

68. I would gleefully trade them the solar project for

the nuclear power plant a mere 10 miles away that shut down last night because it was leaking radioactive water.

[hunter]

74. Coal plants contaminate drinking water and food supplies worldwide with powerful toxins...

...and nobody pays attention.

A nuclear plant spills a few gallons of dirty water, it's all contained, they clean up the spill and fix the leak.

Oh No!

[Demeter]

71. They Should Demand Rent and Royalties

and help in the site selection, or at least a veto.

[mcollins]

75. Have any of you guys ever heard of Seth Potter?

He wrote alot about Space Based Solar Power back in the late 60s and mid 70s. I got to meet him at a deal a couple of years ago.

http://isdc.nss.org/2010/?page=space_solar_power

[Nihil]

76. Ha!

> He wrote alot about Space Based Solar Power back in the late 60s and mid 70s.

And people complain that nuclear power is an expensive boondoggle?!

:rofl: