Vacant-land mythology impedes serious energy discussions | Hacker News Reader

Vacant-land mythology impedes serious energy discussions

thehill.com

11 pointsjseliger24 comments

What? Nobody believes that you can just saddle up, head to Montana, and homestead yourself a wind farm. (It'd be a cool sci-fi setting, though).

People do think that there are vast areas of cheap and lightly utilized land outside of the urban corridors which could produce more money with solar, wind, etc than they do today. They believe this because it is 100% correct, and would be correct whether you were talking about renewable energy or any other light industry.

The author seems to think that because this land is used at all and not free solar etc cannot go there, which is a baffling claim to me on both points.

Worth noting the author’s fellowship at the Manhattan Institute. This is essentially paid content from a very well-funded outfit with pretty clear ideological objectives.

Well, yes, NIMBYism is a thing. But most oil and gas operations, while they take up less space, are more than toxic and smelly enough to make up the difference- and pipelines are regularly routed through public lands, skirting highly populated zones, in the face of massive public opposition. The reason those get built where renewables don't is simply that the oil industry is massive and knows how to work the necessary politics.

The renewable industry will need cultivate its clout, and learn to work the system just like the oil players have- and then, NIMBYism and lack of space will just mysteriously cease to be problems.

Is "nearly ten square miles" supposed to be a lot? The Black Thunder coal mine occupies a lot more land than that and the railroads needed for its 25 trains per day of coal occupy more space than any HVDC transmission system. The fact is we have more than enough free space for all the solar and wind America needs. Put PV all over Edwards AFB and you'd supply a substantial fraction of all of it.

By the way the USA has over 2 billion parking spaces. Somehow we find the space for what we value.

Maybe he has a point to make. But he doesn't make it very well in this opinion piece.

I am currently traveling through the south-western, and mountain-west states. (Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, etc).

Vacant land is not a myth.

Author is a climate change denialist and the institute he works for is funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon mobile.

"When it comes to the science of global climate change, I’m an agnostic.. I don’t know who’s right."

Christ, what an asshole.

Well, yes, it's understandable why traditional energy companies have all sorts of government support including eminent domain and why he wouldn't wish that those protections extend to the competition in the renewable sector.

Why is that understandable?

Energy is a matter of national security and a source of big money, it's easy to see why the government would protect these interests against the pesky locals.

What do you mean? I really don't understand the point you are trying to make. Energy is a matter of national security primarily because our energy sources and distribution are destroying our own country. Quickly, too. Miami will not recognizably exist for the lifetime of the kids growing up in it now.

It is the purpose of the government to serve and protect those "pesky locals" (ew...do you really call your fellow people 'pesky' who want a better world for you?) and the best way the government can do that is to shut down oil/coal/polluting technologies and move to renewables as fast as possible.

> Energy is a matter of national security primarily because our energy sources and distribution are destroying our own country.

Really?

Then how come Saudi's are "nice good guys" and Iranians are "scary bad guys", when neither is an 'enlightened' western-style democracy?

truth is a bit more complicated i'm afraid.

see also: Clash, The. "Rock the Casbah", CBS Records, 1982.

> Really?

Yes, really.

> Then how come Saudi's are "nice good guys"

I have never heard that in my life. Saudi is one of the scariest places on Earth to me, I don't see anything nice or good there, and neither does anyone I know. What do you mean?

> Iranians are "scary bad guys"

I've never heard this either??

What on Earth does any of this have to do with my post?

> I have never heard that in my life.

check us foreign policy. it's pretty clear.

>Saudi is one of the scariest places on Earth to me, I don't see anything nice or good there, and neither does anyone I know.

hey great, your opinion here doesn't matter. you were commenting on national security and energy policy, which may or may not reflect your personal opinions.

> What on Earth does any of this have to do with my post?

that energy policy is also related to geopolitical concerns and protecting strategic interests in other areas (e.g. financial system / allegiances in other areas / petrodollars, etc) and, i posit, not simply "because our energy sources and distribution are destroying our own country" as you claim

From a British perspective, this argument seems utterly absurd. We generate almost twice as much of our electricity using renewable sources, but our population density is eight times higher. If we can find the land to accommodate wind turbines, so can you. There are a heck of a lot of rooftops that don't currently have solar panels on them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

You British also have a history of pulling together when times get tough. Maybe it's because of our lack of density, or maybe it's just the people who up and moved here, but as Churchill supposedly said: “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.”

>They also are concerned about impacts to property values.

What's going to happen to your property values when climate change renders your region uninhabitable?

The expected change for the next hundred years is only a few degrees, it will not make the region uninhabitable this century. People doesn't care too much about the price of the property in a few centuries.

The few degrees is a global average. It won't be evenly distributed, so some areas will suffer more from rising temperatures.

I agree, but for this particular area I think that the estimation is nor far away from the average.

There's obviously some amount of truth to this considering we recently discussed [1] the largest county in the USA (San Bernardino) restricting large-scale solar and wind farm projects.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19277653

of course 'the hill' blames the backwards people in flyover states in need of superior bicoastal enlightenment for resisting the change to renewables, rather than looking for the lobbyists hiding out in their own full-of-hot-air backyard..

reality is probably some combination of both, minus the whole false-superiority bicoastal enlightenment thing..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com