It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
The Trump administration has killed a huge proposed solar power project in Nevada that would have been one of the largest in the world, indicating that the White House plans to attack not only wind power but all renewable energy.
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) changed the status of the Esmeralda 7 project to say its environmental review has been “cancelled”, the climate publication Heatmap first reported.
The super project in southern Nevada was set to cover 185 sq miles – a footprint close to the size of Las Vegas – and include seven solar projects proposed by different companies, including NextEra Energy Resources, Leeward Renewable Energy, Arevia Power and Invenergy. Together, the network of solar panels and batteries was set to produce 6.2 gigawatts of energy, enough to power nearly 2m homes.
Asked to comment, the interior department appeared to leave open the possibility that at least parts of the project could be resubmitted for review. In an email, a spokesperson said: “During routine discussions prior to the lapse in appropriations, the proponents and BLM 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.”
In an executive order on day one, Trump directed a pause on new renewable energy authorizations for federally owned land and water. Then in February he appointed Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Colorado-based oil industry trade group Western Energy Alliance, to head the BLM, which manages a quarter of a billion acres of public land concentrated in western states.
In July, as part of an attempt to win support for his tax and spending bill, Trump issued another order aimed at halting renewable projects, which called on the Department of the Interior to review its policies that affect wind and solar, and gave the interior secretary, Doug Burgum, final decision-making power on whether such projects could proceed.
The following month, the president said his administration would not approve solar or wind power projects. “We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” he posted on Truth Social. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Mutual Fund Observer. All rights reserved. Powered by Vanilla
Comments
What's the definition of "air polution"? For example, China is responsible for "only" 30.1% of all global greenhouse gas emissions (2023 data; see Table 1 on p. 10 of this 2024 EU report)
I'm not minimizing the seriousness of the problem. From the data I've seen (I'm currently taking a course in environmental politics), we've already passed the 1.5°C threshold. I just like to understand what numbers mean when they're bandied about. Does the size of Manhattan really matter? After all, it's only half the size of San Francisco. 23 sq miles vs. 46 sq miles, though I couldn't tell you whether that counts only land area or includes surrounding water.
And the EU considers fossil gas (i.e. methane, a GHG) and nuclear power to be "sustainable energy". As of 2022. Definitions matter.
https://www.politico.eu/article/top-european-court-rules-nuclear-power-green/
I love the taste of fallout in the morning. It smells like..... Victory.
Reference points are most effective when people have incorporated an intuitive sense of them. Manhattan is barely two miles from side to side, while San Francisco is seven miles wide. (I've walked both.) This disparity in linear sizes (and difference in shapes) may distort people's sense of area. As does the fact that Manhattan, while often perceived as most of NYC (outside of JFK) covers but 8% of NYC's land area.
How good is your sense of the size of an acre? My parents had a friend who headed a nature/education center. On an open field he laid out markers for the four corners of an acre. Until I visited there I did not have a good sense of the area covered by an acre.
In a similar vein, consumption without normalizing for land area (let alone population) is misleading. Japan consumes "only" 4.87% as much coal as China. But its land area is just 3.93% that of China's. So it is consuming nearly 1¼ as much coal as China given its size.
Sources:
world coal consumption https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/
(unknown year); see also here
country land areas: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/countries-by-share-of-earths-surface/
Perhaps a more important problem with the China pollution claim is that it conflates consumption with air pollution. SO₂ (wet) scrubbers can reduce emissions by 90%. (Coal fired power plants "are major contributors of air pollution, especially the primary gas-phase pollutant sulfur dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) sulfate...") One can likewise reduce NOx emissions with catalytic (SCR) scrubbers. So consumption doesn't necessarily correlate that closely with pollution.
OTOH, there's Berkshire Hathaway: https://www.reuters.com/investigations/buffetts-berkshire-hathaway-operates-dirtiest-set-coal-fired-power-plants-us-2025-01-14/
A documentary (Counted ≠ Out) about how people need to and can understand numbers better tosses out this joke: If you insert a single statistic into an assertion people are 92% more likely to accept it without question.
Again, pollution in all forms is IMHO a critical problem. I'm questioning the numbers and contexts posted, not that conclusion. I'm questioning the conflating of consumption and production. I'm asking about technologies deployed and even how much it matters who creates that technology so long as it is utilized. I'm questioning investing in companies like BRK, that does whatever it can to avoid literally cleaning up its act.
"Abel declined to comment for this story."
Nevada, a valuable farming mecca? How will a 13x14 sq mile solar array near Vegas affect America's hay, onion and potato market (Nevada's primary crops, mostly located in northern Nevada!)? No ideas on how they could function together? Nevada is known for SUNSHINE and drought and past nuclear testing. What could we do with that area to positively benefit this country? Hmmmm...The logic of this administration (and those that put them there) is baffling.
In order to feed their manufacturing capacity, China has becoming more advanced in power generation than solely on coal. Large dams have been built to feed their power grids across many miles. Large scale solar farms is another example.