Dept of Interior Reaffirms Its Commitment to Fully Developing Public Land Green Energy.

Something close to 50 gigawatts of new solar capacity were installed in 2024. Doesn’t sound like it’s withering away if the average coal powered plant produces 1 gigawatt.
 
Mike D Texas said:
How many acres were taken to make said 50gW?

Solar is the most inefficient way to produce power for consumption.
Click to expand...
Some people confuse efficiency with effectiveness. The solar panels running the exterior lights around our home are effective, so how technically efficient they are is so secondary it’s a non issue.

Some members of our family have had their whole house powered with solar since before solar was cool. It paid for itself a long time ago, and nobody we know would complain about free power, regardless of how efficient.

I see a large solar project spring up next to a cluster of data centers - about the same footprint as a traditional junk yard. I never complained junk yards were taking up too much space, so I could care less if some tech bros want to cut their peak daytime power costs.
 
I know of a spot in BFE Arkansas that currently has about 2,000 acres of panels. Within the next couple years it will be close to 6,000 continuous acres. Until you put eyes on these projects, it's pretty tough to understand the scale.
 
The rush to implement Net Zero via renewable energy on public lands resulted in a gross number of deficiency that would result in damage to public lands.



An AI summary:


An audit by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General (IG) has found significant weaknesses in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) review process for wind and solar project applications on public lands between 2017 and 2023. The audit revealed that more than one in four approved projects contained deficiencies, and for 84% of the 258 applications reviewed, there was no evidence BLM verified applicants' technical and financial capabilities to develop the projects.
The IG attributed these failures to insufficient management oversight, outdated policies, and inadequate staff training, and issued 10 recommendations for improved internal controls, which the BLM agreed to implement.
Audit Findings on BLM's Wind and Solar Application Process


The BLM failed to properly evaluate the technical and financial qualifications of most applicants for wind and solar projects on federal lands.

Over 84% of the 258 applications processed between 2017 and 2023 lacked evidence of verification of applicant capabilities.

The audit identified deficiencies in project applications that could have prevented their advancement, stemming from poor oversight and outdated procedures.

The IG recommended 10 new internal control policies and procedures to improve the review process, and the BLM agreed with nine of them
 
Here is an interactive map resource that I found that helps lay out new renewable energy development and transmission lines. The layering system allows for different projects to be overlayed relative to public land and other geographic features. Credit to the creator. It is a nice tool.

Our Grid Future

ourgridfuture.org ourgridfuture.org
 
TaperPin said:
Some people confuse efficiency with effectiveness. The solar panels running the exterior lights around our home are effective, so how technically efficient they are is so secondary it’s a non issue.

Some members of our family have had their whole house powered with solar since before solar was cool. It paid for itself a long time ago, and nobody we know would complain about free power, regardless of how efficient.

I see a large solar project spring up next to a cluster of data centers - about the same footprint as a traditional junk yard. I never complained junk yards were taking up too much space, so I could care less if some tech bros want to cut their peak daytime power costs.
Click to expand...
Want to make solar effective, cover roof on houses instead of destroying habitat.
 
WRO said:
Want to make solar effective, cover roof on houses instead of destroying habitat.
Click to expand...
we sort of talked about that earlier in the thread. Small systems are incredibly difficult to translate into grid power at scale. Especially without storage. Renewable energy is going to require projects to be built at incredibly large scale with storage if they are going to work the way that proponents of electrification and renewable net zero would like. storage is a big part of the renewable plan. All the metals involved in storage and electrification are driving a lot of the mining activity I see conservationists expressing concerns about such as ambler road. Renewable facilities are generally increasing in size not decreasing. Look at SunZia for instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WRO
I wanted to post an update to this topic since there is a important step in this issue and directly related to the original topic. In late April 2026, a federal court in MA granted a preliminary injunction regarding the Trump Admin's "slow-walking" of 6 renewable permits for a variety of reasons. Renewable companies and conservation/environmental groups have sort of joined forces legally to fight the administration to get those permits issued (1 example of amicus brief from NWF: https://offshorewind.nwf.org/wp-con...7-1_Proposed-Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-ISO-PI.pdf). These 6 permits are just the tip of the iceberg (please dont get mad about content of the media source. It is just for context on "re: lots of permits on hold" but many others news examples exist but are behind paywalls: https://www.heinrich.senate.gov/new...undreds-of-wind-and-solar-projects-nationwide). Many other permits are on "hold" and will like proceed as the 6 in this decision do. Is this the final say in public land renewable development? No. Does this decision potentially have an impact on many 10s of millions of acres of public land? Yes. I would expect some type of appeal, but when pressed about the issue, Sec Burgum did not really answer that. Link at the end.

I will try to keep to the abbreviated summary of the whole thing because people don't reading long posts. I will point out 2 things I found most interesting. The plaintiffs and friends of the court took issue with the admin/DOI use of a capacity density analysis and the administration having a an Eagle Take Permit Ban (DOI dropped this prior to lawsuit so injunction was not sought). There are 5 points the plaintiffs seek to enjoin preliminarily and stay. The Eagle Issue is not included in those 5. You can read the MA Federal Court Decision here:


The admin/DOI essential using that capacity density analysis to say that the renewables had too big a footprint for the amount of energy generated.

The Eagle Take Permit Ban was essentially DOI scrapping the 2024 Biden Administration Adjustment to the Eagle Rule for incidental take of eagles (2024 Eagle Rule Change: https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...agle-nests-correction-and-technical-amendment) (original 2013: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2013-29088.pdf).

I have not seen this case posted on any of the hunting conservation forums or sites but I may have missed it. I would appreciate it if people would point out if i missed coverage as I am interested to hear takes from some of those sources. This is not a x or y admin or politician bad post so please don't drop a political hot take. I tried to keep it as factual as I could based on the documents. I used a link to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee (Mike Lee Chair/Heinrich Ranking Member) since that rounds out some takes from all 3 branches of government on the issue. I chose the social media link from the Ranking Member's feed as to avoid being called a shill for the administration. Here is Senator Heinrich pressing Sec. Burgum on the issue.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2049612438811689259


Again. Please no political hot takes as we have been asked to avoid those. I tried to be as factual as possible by including primary sources and felt this court decision warranted mention. If you think I stated something wrong or missed some context, by all means weigh in.
 
I'm curious about the intersection of the "not all public land is valuable habitat, so it's ok if we sell some of it to developers" sentiment on this forum with the "there should be no solar on any public lands" sentiment.
 
grainhog said:
I'm curious about the intersection of the "not all public land is valuable habitat, so it's ok if we sell some of it to developers" sentiment on this forum with the "there should be no solar on any public lands" sentiment.
Click to expand...

It’s actually pretty simple, we have severely fragmented habitat in areas that’s just blm owned homeless camps in severely land constrained communities, and then we have beautiful winter range, migration corridors, etc that they want to put 100s if not thousands of acres of solar on that will take it permanently out of use for everyone.

It’s very limited circumstances that I’m good with selling public land, and in a perfect world those sales would fund purchases of valuable winter range, but instead we’re in a world full of absolutists and hypocrites. Environmental organizations that fight oil and mining tooth and nail only to support large scale solar and wind for example. Groups that rail against public land ranching only to turn a blind eye to wild horse damage, the list of bullshit runs deep on both sides.
 
grainhog said:
I'm curious about the intersection of the "not all public land is valuable habitat, so it's ok if we sell some of it to developers" sentiment on this forum with the "there should be no solar on any public lands" sentiment.
Click to expand...


I think the segment of people that fall into the category you are describing is pretty small on this forum. Some people may be anti renewable but very few are pro public land transfer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WRO
It is being reported that the Trump administration plans to appeal the MA federal court decision I discussed in post#89 above. I am not aware of the details of what that appeal is nor do I believe it has been officially filed at this time.
 
Very long post with many references for those very interested in this topic. I will insert my usual disclaimers that I am not anti renewable, I am an "all of the above" energy policy believer. My concern is time constrained net zero incentivizing bad decision making.

grainhog said:
I'm curious about the intersection of the "not all public land is valuable habitat, so it's ok if we sell some of it to developers" sentiment on this forum with the "there should be no solar on any public lands" sentiment.
Click to expand...


I wanted to come back to this comment and provide some sourced facts about the public land hunting community's response to the "PLT bad but renewables good" point of view that portions the environmental and conservation community has largely adopted as well as provide updates on renewable energy (RE) progress. (all social media links/citations are primary source - from that person's/affliations so I am not accused of shilling). My intention is to inform the public land hunting community what the policy positions, legislation, and current permitting push are regarding RE. My intent of this post is not to provide a political hot take on those positions. The overwhelming majority of public land hunters and outdoor recreators at large view broad scale public land transfer negatively. The same can not be said for the opposite and the build out of renewables to meet net zero. Large sections of the environmental and conservation community have advocated for the industrialized development of large sections of public lands with renewable energy development and infrastructure to meet short term net zero energy policy. The lawsuit I linked provides indisputable evidence of that fact and as well as podcasts, legislation, or attempted legislation many hunters may not even aware of. Or in some cases renewables are outright omitted as an important public land issue such as this podcast not even mentioning renewable development. (@11:00 minutes in meateater / RN clip the question is "what are the big issues in the next 10 yrs" and renewables do not even come up (Meateater Network w Randy Newberg). Examples in links and clips below. Please No Iran War commentary- One Clip includes a lot of grid discussion but has a senator comment about iran.

Examples:
1779223062378.png
https://twitter.com/x/status/2036922266521579616

https://twitter.com/x/status/1849450779578409241
Excuse the Political Ad but it is the Sunzia Wind Project and Also Pinned Tweet for Senator Heinrich who is ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Comittee

1779146443297.png
Statement Source: Energy and Natural Resources Committee Democratic Official X Account

The western solar plan (WSP) opened peoples eyes to what lays in store for western public lands, but many public land hunters are not well informed about the WSP beyond maybe a podcast or 2, wind development issues, or do not know that for over a year some of the most intense debate in the senate committee that Utah Senator Mike Lee chairs has been regarding permitting of large scale development of public lands. The public land hunting/conservation media sources that many hunters rely on for public land hunting-related information have largely been lacking on detailed, up-to-date, and balanced information on the subject (please link any information or dm as I always link to read or listen to whats out there). Joel Webster on Rokcast is probably the stand out podcast I have heard on the subject from a western big game hunting perspective and that was way back in 2024. I encourage people to listen to it ( https://www.rokslide.com/mule-deer-migration-routes-with-trcp/ ). The Meateater podcast with The Nature Conservancy guy is okayyyyy. not the best, not the worst. I actually think Steve Rinella did ok in the start of the segment with tough but fair questions/points without being a jerk to the guest. Its 2 yrs old now and predates the WSP ROD.

BLM under the Biden Administration was eager to ensure the public that only a very small portion of the lands in the WSP would be developed with 700,000 acres cited in the WSP ROD. Media sources passed that figure on to their listeners/readers as the worst case "most development", ie "On the other hand, while there might be lots of BLM land in Wyoming and other states open to development, realistically, only a small portion will actually see new projects. Of the 22 million total acres identified, the BLM predicts that only about 3% (697,809 acres) of that will need to be developed to meet Biden-administration clean energy goals." ( https://www.themeateater.com/conser...-plans-solar-projects-on-western-public-lands ). The 700,000 acres number cited in the press releases and repeated by many media outlets could actually be much larger depend on which modelling is used (https://docs.nlr.gov/docs/fy25osti/91848.pdf). The cited number is for "Direct Federal Land Use" (~700,000 acres disturbed or inside the fence) instead of the "Total Federal Land Use" number which would have been 2,000,000 acres. Depending on the development scenario that number can get much bigger. The modelling shows that if total solar development in the US begins to favor federal land rather than private land, the "Total Federal Land Use" number grows ever more up to more like 4.8 million acres. Thats just solar FYI. Not transmission, not wind, not geothermal.

A lot has been happening since 2024 and the WSP decision and those modelled estimates too. Data centers are the current boogieman hot topic (I am not taking a pro or anti data center position in this post). BLM/DOI's official press release for the WSP and the WSP itself ( https://www.blm.gov/press-release/i...amework-future-solar-development-public-lands ) do not mention data centers a single time or a single reference to AI driven electricity demand. The studies and modelling the WSP relied upon for electricity demand and subsequent acreage needed for solar generation were not fully inclusive of mega investment and proliferation of AI energy demand and data centers. With the realization of what is happening with AI, data centers, and the associated energy demand, does anyone really think it is still the case the amount of acreage used to meet electric demand in a net zero economy is going to be "a small percentage"? Look at the estimated electricity use scenario published in this Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report ( https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32d6m0d1 ). From what I can tell that additional data center/AI demand is unaccounted for in the acreage calculations presented to the public for the WSP (Right side of figure). The energy and transmission sector seemed to knew exactly what was coming and negotiated the scale of potential development of public lands in anticipation of the net zero energy policy that everyone will be subjected to (https://seia.org/news/seia-statemen...r-solar-development-across-11-western-states/). On top of that, the scale and number of planned projects is increasing. Massive projects like Sunzia entail ~900 windmills and the RioSol/Sunzia transmission projects to get the electricity from the New Mexico desert into Arizona so it can be put into the grid for use in California ( https://riosol.energy/old/riosol-sunzia-old/ )( https://patternenergy.com/projects/sunzia/ ).

https://twitter.com/x/status/2045166841236951365
.


1779285739467.png
Credit NYTIMES
1779154243802.jpeg
The calculations used in the Renewable Energy Estimates in the NREL Publication on the Right do not appear to have accounted for data centers using between 6.7% and 12% of US power consumption by 2028 (left side).

Here is a link I check from a time to time to view what permits are being considered under the Fast-41 Permitting Council. Those permits include a wide range of things such as mining, transmission, generation, etc.

www.permitting.gov

Current FAST-41 Covered Projects

The Permitting Council maintains an active portfolio of infrastructure projects that have obtained coverage under FAST-41. The list below details the FAST-41 projects currently receiving assistance from the Permitting Council for their federal permitting reviews.
www.permitting.gov www.permitting.gov

Here is a link to the National Renewable Energy Lab which also has useful information on the subject matter and link to their short paper on Data Center Siting since that is a topic of interest for many people presently.

www.energy.gov

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

National Renewable Energy Laboratory
www.energy.gov www.energy.gov

Like the Rokcast podcast pointed out...the renewable development is coming, there is no stopping it at this point. The fight is probably limited to stopping individual projects when practical or possible, influencing very specific issues, or having a say in where some of those facilities are built with in the 31 million designated solar area for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Secretary DOI pick: Rep. Deb Haaland
Replies
8
Views
2K
TaperPin
TaperPin
Jason Snyder
Good essay on federal land transfer proposal
Replies
13
Views
3K
pyrotechnic
P

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top