The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

https://www.ksut.org/news/2024-02-15/ute-mountain-ute-tribe-will-construct-one-of-the-largest-solar-farms-in-the-u-s

by namanyayg • 2 years ago

377 290 2 years ago

Officials are planning to break ground on the construction of the Sun Bear Solar Farm later in 2024, with the goal of producing electricity in 2026. Annual capacity is estimated to be about 756 megawatts.

loeg7• 2 years ago

I wonder what kind of capacity factor they're using.

dn3500• 2 years ago

Yeah this is obviously wrong. They meant just capacity, not "annual capacity". Annual output should be around 1500 GWh.

1970-01-01• 2 years ago

https://www.sunbearproject.com/

doodlebugging8• 2 years ago

Thanks for this link.

Aachen4• 2 years ago

European here. What kind of legal structure is tribe in this context?

“We, as the Ute Mountain Ute tribe, had been a fossil fuel tribe with oil and gas for a long time, probably over 50 years. Today, with the changes in legislation, global warming, and climate change, you can see the impact of what's happening to our world.

I think I only ever heard tribe used to describe a group or maybe 10-30 hunter-gatherers, or perhaps the descendants of such a group, but this is clearly not that. It sounds more like it might be a municipality with jurisdiction over some city+-sized plot of land? Or is it like a church type of structure where anyone in the area can sign up to be a member? Or something completely different?

I've tried looking up tribe but the definition I get is this

A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.

That doesn't sound like the type of structure to have a billion USD to invest. There's three definitions given but none of them fit the context here

yCombLinks• 2 years ago

Native American groups were pushed onto reservations in the 1800s. They have political autonomy. The groups are called tribes.

stenius• 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ute_people#Reservations

wizerdrobe• 2 years ago

They tend to work in a capacity similar to a US State, e.g. Utah itself but there is a lot of variation and nuance from tribe to tribe and state to state.

You will run into confusing situations where a county law enforcement official might patrol on a reservation because there is overlap or nebulous boundaries with the blessing (cross deputizarion) from the tribal law enforcement. However some tribes defer more of their governance to a Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

For a largely autonomous example, the Cherokee in North Carolina are interesting. Largely funded by their casinos and now marijuana which is legal on their reservation but not the encompassing state of North Carolina. They have fairly strict rules around membership, such that a Cherokee that was shipped off to Oklahoma is not eligible for membership. Land ownership is based on tribal membership, not quite following standard American rules. It’s a fun deep dive to read up on their system.

tired-turtle• 2 years ago

Within the context of the US, tribe can refer to a specific group of Native Americans. Group size is irrelevant, e.g. the Navajo Nation has the largest reservation and 165k members.

Each tribe is free to determine its own legal structure, as it is a separate polity (a sovereign nation) from the US -- sort of. US federal law still applies on federal reservations.

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

CogitoCogito3• 2 years ago

Does it matter if this group of people refers to itself as a “tribe” or a “nation” or something else? If they started referring to themselves as a “nation” for example, would anything change.

In any case, it’s quite common in the US for groups like this to be referred to as a “tribe”. I guess today you’re one of the lucky 10,000.

solardev7• 2 years ago

Some tribes were able to secure federal recognition, which grants them a more official diplomatic relationship in regards to their dealings with the federal and state governments of the United States: https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-federally-recognized-tribe

Because the Constitution vested the Legislative Branch with plenary power over Indian Affairs, states have no authority over tribal governments unless expressly authorized by Congress. While federally recognized tribes generally are not subordinate to states, they can have a government-to-government relationship with these other sovereigns, as well.
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes possess both the right and the authority to regulate activities on their lands independently from state government control. They can enact and enforce stricter or more lenient laws and regulations than those of the surrounding or neighboring state(s) wherein they are located. Yet, tribes frequently collaborate and cooperate with states through compacts or other agreements on matters of mutual concern such as environmental protection and law enforcement.

From https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions

Unfortunately, this is just a continuation of the numerous betrayals the US and military units have inflicted on them for the past centuries. Our government and soldiers routinely violated the treaties we signed and forcibly relocated and murdered many people.

Many tribes did not retain their federal recognition and just kinda exist in a no-man's land between states and the federal government, lacking much of the autonomy of the federally recognized tribes.

Aachen4• 2 years ago

Does it matter if this group of people refers to itself as a “tribe” or a “nation” or something else?

No, I just did not know what it meant and certainly would not have guessed something close to nation as it turns out to be! I'm feeling like there's suddenly more countries on the planet than I knew about, and wondering why we never hear from them on the news or elsewhere! Well, until now at least :)

A sibling comment says they avoid the word tribe to avoid the historic associations though, so I don't know what their preferred word would be. Probably it also differs between groups or even individuals within one.

argc• 2 years ago

In this context Tribe is a federally recognized sovereign yet dependent nation. They have the ability to govern themselves but are still subject to federal law, but while on reservations they not subject to state law, only federal and tribal law. It's complicated.

solardev7• 2 years ago

In the US, this is a general term for descendants of Native American peoples. Their degree of sovereignty unfortunately varies; some tribes are "federally recognized" and enjoy state-like recognition of their autonomy by the federal (central) government, while others have to bargain with the states surrounding their territories. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American)

And a FAQ: https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions

The land they directly control can be anywhere from tiny to gigantic, depending on the particulars: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_L...

Many people also live in surrounding areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_reservations_in...

Much of the time the tribes have their own small governments, similar to municipal services, but also often with their own equivalents to "courts", "police", etc., who may utilize different corrective measures than the US ones. Often they will have an agreement with surrounding law enforcement (or the federal government) to partner up on certain categories of infractions, such as traffic violations or murders.

Some tribes have some money thanks to casinos and other business activities, but most are unfortunately quite poor, and many of their communities must work very hard to survive.

(This all is just my layman's understanding. I am not Native American, but I've lived near their communities. Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

---------

Edit: The 2023 movie Killers of the Flower Moon is really worth watching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(fi...

Aachen4• 2 years ago

Thanks for the insight! I had no idea some enjoyed so much autonomy, or that something other than the democratically elected government arranged for courts to exist in some regions. If I ever visit the USA, this sounds like they'll be some of the culturally most interesting places to include in the trip. Odd that I had never heard of this before. (That native Americans exist, sure, and the word reservation I've heard as well but that honestly sounds more like zoo than like state. Probably I should have looked into what this means sooner!)

ddhhyy• 2 years ago

A Native American tribe recognized by the United States government possesses tribal sovereignty, a "dependent sovereign nation" status with the Federal Government that is similar to that of a state in some situations, and that of a nation in others, holding a government-to-government relationship with the Federal government of the United States.

The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe referenced in the article is one such Federally recognized tribe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American) https://www.bia.gov/service/tribal-leaders-directory

loeg7• 2 years ago

Recognized tribes in the US are their own legal entities, with similar theoretically legal status to US states. You're right that it seems unlikely they have $1B lying around to invest. I expect they'll need to finance the project in some way.

nerdponx• 2 years ago

In this case I think the word "tribe" is referring to the Ute Mountain sub-group of the Ute people.

But it's certainly nothing like the primitive society you are imagining, and that's partly why I think a lot of American Indian nations don't use that word to describe themselves.

For example, the "Seneca tribe" calls themselves the Seneca Nation. That is, they were and are a group of people sharing common ethnicity, culture, language, and some kind of governmental organization across their territory, which at one point covered a large portion of what is now western New York state. They lived in towns with palisade walls and farmed several crops. They interacted with other nations in a complicated geopolitical system involving trade, alliance, and war. It's a far cry from the image of dumb savages in crude huts.

In the USA today, American Indian nations are essentially sovereign nations, and have some of their own territory in areas called reservations. So that's what we are talking about here: the actions of a sovereign nation, with its own government and geographical territory.

Aachen4• 2 years ago

For example, the "Seneca tribe" calls themselves the Seneca Nation.

That sounds a lot more accurate given the explanation (also from other comments) where they have their own courts and everything. Odd that the words reservation and tribe are still in use like this.

(And perhaps I should clarify: I didn't mean to imply that these people (evidently having a billion to invest in solar) are living in huts or otherwise are like the historic hunter-gatherer societies I mentioned. The word evoced that image for me, but of course I realise that this cannot be accurate, hence the confusion.)

IncreasePosts• 2 years ago

They could be raising the money from outside bankers or investors. Commonly, you can get away with stuff on tribal ground that you could not get away with in the surrounding area, since the tribal ground doesn't follow the state laws of the surrounding state.

snickerbockers2• 2 years ago

A) They're native americans. In the US Native Americans are often referred to as "tribes", "nations" or "reservations".

B) its more like what would be referred to as a "semi autonomous region" in other countries. They have their own governments, police forces, etc.

C) they probably secured some sort of outside investments, these native american reservations are by no means unsophisticated. Other reservations have been able to bring in revenue by using their autonomy to establish casinos and resorts on their lands, even in states where that would be illegal outside of the reservations (because the reservation's autonomy means that they aren't necessarily bound by the laws of whatever state they are in).

doodlebugging8• 2 years ago

Sounds like a nice, sustainable economic boom for the Ute Tribe once they bring it online.

Reading the slides from the biological/archaeological impact studies from Canigou Group shows that someone didn't proofread their slide.

The burrowing owl study states that it is "Threatened with the State of Colorado but not Federally".

It was probably supposed to say "Threatened within..."

Good luck to the Utes. There is not much industry other than oil and gas exploration in that region unless recent interest in nuclear power generation has restarted local mining operations shut down in the 1970's that used to be large employers (and polluters) out there.

EDIT: Following the link posted by another comment shows that the slide in this article has been corrected. The same slide on that link says "in" instead of "with".

EasyMark3• 2 years ago

Sounds like a nice, sustainable economic boom for the Ute Tribe once they bring it online.

As long as they properly distribute the profits to tribe members. There have definitely been some boondoggles in the past that only help the 1% ers

doodlebugging8• 2 years ago

This is a problem with all tribes. Resource extraction on tribal land is not necessarily improving the living standards of all members of the tribe. It's the same story whether we look at oil and gas production, coal or mineral mining, hydroelectric power generation, timber production, or wind and solar energy production.

Electing tribal leaders who will focus on improvements that spread the wealth and boost living standards can be as difficult for them as it is for other Americans to elect leaders who attempt to improve their constituent's lives and create opportunities for them.

It is also a challenge, less so today than in the past, to find tribal members with the domain knowledge to be able to understand how all this can be put to best use for the benefit of all.

Then you also need firewalls in place to prevent exploitation by multinational corporations with the domain expertise who use that to draft agreements that end up cheating the tribes out of profits that should go to the tribes.

It's a hard problem since it is so endemic in the American business world and since many programs that are currently in place have no one conducting effective oversight to insure that business is conducted transparently and to the benefit of the ones owning the resources.

Tiktaalik• 2 years ago

Seems to me like the 1%ers not handing down profits is a problem in Silicon Valley and beyond too...

hinkley2• 2 years ago

Threatened with the State of Colorado

If you don’t eat your vegetables I’m sending you to live with your uncle Phil, in Colorado.

hooo4• 2 years ago

Does anyone have a breakdown of the materials required to create 2.2 million solar panels? I worry that we measure solar strictly on the carbon emissions and not the full environmental impact -- such as that of land and mining of materials.

Edit: I'm not advocating fossil fuels. I think solar makes a ton of sense, but it also seems crazy to think we could build enough solar + storage capacity for the world. Nuclear energy is the real future.

mstipetic• 2 years ago

No one has ever thought of that and for sure can’t be available through a basic Google search. Maybe I’m wrong but every time anything with renewables comes there’s comments spreading doubt with basic questions

shermantanktop• 2 years ago

We also get brilliant insights about how solar panels don’t generate power at night.

werdnapk• 2 years ago

What do you propose as an alternative? Coal has to mine their source material. Oil has to drill for their source material. One is much cleaner than the others. Nuclear is where I think we should moving in a perfect world, but the general population is fairly misinformed on modern day nuclear power generation.

hooo4• 2 years ago

I'm not against solar. I think a seriously massive nuclear build up makes sense. To the extent you get economies of scale and not every project is a bespoke effort.

dangrossman3• 2 years ago

Is a coal mine better for the land than a silica mine? Are a few mines worse for "land" than tens of thousands of square miles of it sinking into the ocean due to sea level rise, taking millions of homes with it? I think people generally value the coastlines more than piles of rock in an unpopulated area of West Virginia or what have you.

hooo4• 2 years ago

No one mentioned coal

usrusr3• 2 years ago

Certainly within an order of magnitude or two of any other 1bln project that isn't just shoving money at penpushers. Money that isn't frozen but circulating will cause materials to be mined from the earth and transformed into stuff and/or emissions.

appplication• 2 years ago

I’m not suggesting you did this intentionally, because this sort of stuff is difficult to really know or find definitive answers to. But I think it’s worth being aware that, in general, an over-focus on material cost for creating renewables etc is typically a conservative talking point and recommendation towards maintenance of the fossil fuel status quo. It appeals in particular to logical, skeptical folks like many of us here.

The environmental impact of mining/refining is certainly significant and worthy of some concern. But it is worth noting that fossil fuels also require significant mining and refining. In general it is thought that solar panels would offset their environmental cost within 1-3 years, with an average lifetime of 15-30 years. So roughly, you could expect them to “recoup” about an order of magnitude more than it took to manufacture.

It’s actually a very good and smart question to ask. But I think sometimes it’s perhaps a question over-asked by some groups in bad faith to sow doubt. Similarly you’ll hear the same argument applied to plastic vs cloth shopping bags.

thfuran• 2 years ago

But as I understand it, the cloth bags generally do lose out unless used hundreds of times, which is plausible but hardly a given. And the plastic bags are often re-used as small garbage bags, so eliminating them frequently just means someone is going to buy another plastic bag.

aunetx• 2 years ago

If you can understand French or don't mind subtitles, I advise you very strongly to listen the interview Aurore Stéphant gave on the Thinkerview some months ago.

Contrary to what other might be saying, that's not a question we can avoid asking, as there is a physical realities behind the ideal of switching to a fully decarbonated and decentralised grid... Even though that's basically the only thing we can do to keep existing as a specie.

tfourb12• 2 years ago

Here is a great comparison of land use for different power sources, based on power output: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

Solar is roughly on par with coal, depending on the exact type of solar technology used. Of course you can put solar on existing structures, in which case the land use is negligible and on par with nuclear.

Regarding energy input, solar panels break even after about two years, I think (no source on hand currently). It would be quite easy to have solar panel production run entirely on renewable energy input.

Regarding the other resources, you can't really compare energy sources to one another, as all are using vastly different inputs and have different challenges regarding disposal of waste and recycling. You'd have to make a judgement based on impact. I.e. coal is really bad, because it produces CO2 which has potentially society-ending consequences. Nuclear has challenges, because the waste remains radioactive for so long. My personal impression is that solar has some challenges, but those are manageable and likely can be mitigated by regulating disposal and recycling of old panels.

photochemsyn3• 2 years ago

International jet travel doubtless seemed like a crazy idea to people 100 years ago, but now it's a reality - and 100 years from now, it's a very good bet that solar will be providing the majority of human civilization's energy demand.

Solar is already cheaper than nuclear in terms of cost per MWH, and while adding extensive storage tends to even the cost out, nuclear still has some disadvantages including: uncertain uranium fuel sources and costs, black swan catastrophe concerns, cooling water demands, and long-term waste disposal costs - all issues solar mostly avoids. Some niche nuclear uses are more promising, e.g. China's current attempt to make pebble-bed helium-cooled models work for industrial process use (500C steam).

Look at France, they've got a big expensive mess on their hands after betting on nuclear: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter...

solardev7• 2 years ago

(Disclaimer: I often work in the solar industry, but am not currently. I'll try my best not to be biased.)

Does anyone have a breakdown of the materials required to create 2.2 million solar panels?

In academia, these are called "lifecycle analyses" (or sometimes cradle-to-grave/cradle-to-cradle analyses). Here's one by the International Energy Agency, a NGO: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/IEA-PVPS-LCI...

PDF page 21 has a detailed bill of materials for PV modules (solar panels), and pg 60 for li-ion batteries. There are also breakdowns for various parts of subcomponents.

In general, as you noted, we're pretty good at analyzing the carbon impacts of PV manufacturing (TLDR: it's a net positive), but the land use question is much harder because it's not a mathematical equation that you can apply. How do you weigh X solar panels vs Y endangered tortoises or whatever? It's often just a case-by-case determination, and in the US that usually means an specialized environmental review under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) or similar state laws.

It always boil down to a judgment call (and also local community sentiment, to some degree), the quality of the review, and maybe just plain dumb luck (whether the site surveys happen to notice any listed species at that particular time).

------

Re: Land & mining...

Climate change isn't great for many species either (it does help some plants and such), so even from a land use conservation point of view, the opportunity cost of not building more solar/nuclear often means increased desertification or flooding, etc., just because climate change will slowly affect big swaths of land and water. In a way, these renewables projects can be thought of a way to sacrifice small plots of land to try to protect the rest. With some exceptions (like old growth forests), I think in general we are better able to manage around localized disruptions in land area than global climate change, if only because most land is controlled (and thus permitted/reviewed) only by a few entities and maybe 1-3 governments (federal/state/tribal), vs anything climatic involving the whole damned world and all its politicians and protestors.

The mining of materials, though, also causes a lot of human suffering that a lot of these academic analyses don't fully account for, or illustrate very well on a visceral level. Read: child labor in highly dangerous mines under terrible conditions, just so Joe American can feel a bit better about driving his Tesla with a few panels on his roof. But, to be fair, that system of exploitation is going to exist no matter our energy source. It's not always foreign kids, but coal mining is no easy life either.

-------

Re: Nuclear

I'm pro-nuclear myself, but many people still aren't (for reasons not worth getting into here, which I'm sure you already know).

I think PV has reached such a low price point (thanks, China) that nuclear just isn't really speed- or cost-competitive anymore.

Realistically, though, we really need both (like a solar bridge to nuclear), much more than we have now, and much faster, and we're not going to get enough of either one in time =/

I don't think it's really a "PV vs nuclear" but a "all of the above, and then some!"

thinkcontext3• 2 years ago

Nuclear energy is the real future

At present in the US there's no reactor that anyone will build. No one will build any more big AP1000s after the unmitigated financial disasters that were its 2 initial projects. Everyone has put their faith in small reactors (SMRs) but the only one with an approved design (NuScale) had its initial project fail after a Utah utility coalition fell apart.

The NuScale project that failed was supposed to come online around 2030. Their other project was some sort of Bitcoin mining fiction, its not clear they will have a future. There are a bunch of SMR startups that are at various stages of development, however, none has an approved design. So, we're looking at after 2030 if we're lucky with speculative designs that may or may not work out.

Not a very certain bet.

gotoeleven• 2 years ago

If your environmental regulations prevent you from saving the environment by making it too expensive to save the environment, maybe you have too many environmental regulations?

The medium term future of energy in the US at least is california, ie ridiculously expensive and unreliable. Hopefully costs will eventually come down as we get enough batteries and grid infrastructure in place so everyone can have their indian solar power energy--but a sane policy that would have been to have excess nuclear capacity in place and slowly transition to solar panels as the reliability improves.

thelastgallon4• 2 years ago

The materials will be insignificant. Its a one time material cost which yields energy for 25 - 30 years. And at EOL, it will still produce ~80% (which is really good!), the life is 25 - 30, but manufacturers won't provide longer warranty. I don't see any compelling reasons to decommission solar fields producing 80% after 30 years.

Also, land usage can be minimal. Vertical panels can allow farming, and are also more efficient (allow heat to escape), cover the early mornings and evenings better.

40m acres (just in US!) are used for ethanol production to produce a small fraction of fuel. I'd imagine the material costs of these 40m acres over 25 - 50 years (fertilizer, harvesting, shipping, refining ....) would be a lot more than solar panels.

Also, 40% of shipping is fossil fuels, we are mining, refining and shipping billions of tons every year.

Also remember the fossil fuel plants and infrastructure are not material free. There is a one time cost of materials there just as much as solar panels. But for fuel, solar panels have zero input costs, zero processing costs, zero waste production.

Solvency• 2 years ago

Imagine if the US enabled/supported native tribes in things like land management, sustainable bison management, solar farms, and things that actually seek to improve the national health/fertility/ecosystem instead of the gross complex they've created for them now.

wavefunction• 2 years ago

There's been a larger focus during the Biden administration on supporting indigenous peoples and improving and reforming the relationship between the US Federal government and these peoples. His administration appointed Deb Haaland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_Haaland) as the first Native American Secretary of the Interior. Interior is in charge of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and she's been leveraging her position to tackle some of those exact efforts you mentioned. In March of 2023 last year she announced $25,000,000 for bison restoration efforts which admittedly is not enough but it's better than previous administrations have managed. (https://apnews.com/article/bison-restoration-tribes-haaland-...)

loeg7• 2 years ago

It's unclear how they will finance this $1B project or who they will sell the juice to. Is the tribe getting suckered into a bad deal?

kitten_mittens_• 2 years ago

who...will they sell the juice to?

Utah is already a power exporter. Utah generates about one-fifth more electricity than it consumes, and the state is a net supplier of power to other states.[1]

[1] https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=UT

loeg7• 2 years ago

This tribe is in Colorado, not Utah, despite the name.

Transmission is expensive; you'd rather sell locally. Before you finance a $1B project it would be good to have a sense of how you expect to sell the outputs!

photochemsyn3• 2 years ago

The financial outfit behind it seems to have a decent track record with smaller projects around the world:

https://energypeople.com/news/story/green-returns-for-green-...

They also state that they're interested in developing hydrogen and ammonia production capability using the electricity produced, rather than selling it to the grid, but building such production facilities would increase up-front costs by several billion.

loeg7• 2 years ago

Thanks! I'd be interested in hearing more about the specific terms and sources of capital for this project, if you know.

oaththrowaway2• 2 years ago

IIRC this tribe has a casino

Matthew_Stevens• 2 years ago

Figured this out because I was curious- This would makeup about .17% of total US electricity consumption in 2022.

Assuming 4 trillion kWh. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect....

loeg7• 2 years ago

Also for context, the quoted 756MW figure is about 68% of a single AP1000 reactor.

thinkcontext3• 2 years ago

Too bad no one wants to build AP1000s even though there is a site in FL with all approvals and the new Biden subsidy. That's how badly the two projects fucked up.

lambda8• 2 years ago

And an AP1000 reactor costs about $6.8 billion to build, and substantially higher operating costs. 68% of the power for 14% of the price seems like a pretty good deal to me, there's a reason people are investing more in solar than nuclear, it's just more cost effective.

edit: Oh, and that $6.8 billion looks optimistic. This project with two AP1000s looks like it costs $30 billion. https://www.ans.org/news/article-3949/vogtle-project-update-...

samatman2• 2 years ago

That's a serious overestimate. Figuring a 90% capacity factor for the reactor and 20% for the solar installation, it's 1005MW delivered power for the former and 151MW delivered for the latter. That's 15% of one reactor, or put another way, it would take about six and a half of these solar installations to provide the same power as one reactor.

photochemsyn3• 2 years ago

The financial backer of the project (London-based Canigou Group) says they're looking into using the electricity for water -> hydrogen -> ammonia pathways, which is a way around the energy transport problem (the best places for solar are often not co-located with human populations).

https://www.canigougroup.com/news/evaluation-of-green-hydrog...

Methanol is another valuable endpoint, the Chinese version of this (CEEC Songyuan) is using the same approach but intends to make both ammonia and methanol.

thelastgallon4• 2 years ago

Largest in US, but pretty small compared to whats coming up. Todays news, ~$12B in Philippines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39408076

Edit: 3.58B, not 12 from another comment. Still, pretty large investment for Philippines.

38• 2 years ago

Isn't the actual size important, and not the money involved?

thelastgallon4• 2 years ago

Yes, actual size, but also relative to the size of their economy. Considering Philippines GDP, this is significant.

mistrial9• 2 years ago

spectacular public works history in the Phillipines !

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

huytersd2• 2 years ago

Bhadla Solar park in India. 7 miles long and 3.5 miles wide. If I’m not mistaken, it’s currently the largest in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park?wprov=sfti1#...

nharada2• 2 years ago

Dang they went out and found 400+ of a rare cactus and avoided building on them? Anyone know how they actually did that survey? Like someone just goes out for days at a time and looks?

tfourb12• 2 years ago

Not sure how it went in that specific case but yes, these type of impact studies are usually hands on, you go out into the field with a bunch of people and comb an area completely.

In case of a chip factory currently developed by Intel in Germany, they went out onto the 200ha (roughly 280 football fields) and found and resettled 7 rare hamsters. 2 of those had to be dug out: https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/magdeburg/magd...

nharada2• 2 years ago

That's pretty wild. Do you much about this? It's kinda related to a project I'm working on and I'd be interested in chatting if so!

araes• 2 years ago

That story is one of the weirder stories I've read on Hacker News recently. Cute though:

"The last hamster of the fields gave a timid crow when Alexander Resetaritz drew it out of the construction on his paw and pushed it into the transport box."

pixl972• 2 years ago

I wonder how much identification of different floria could be done by hi-def drone capture of an area then image identification of different species could be done these days? I could see things like hamsters being more difficult as small mammals tend to hide to avoid being prey.

doodlebugging8• 2 years ago

Back in the day I worked on seismic field crews in that region.

Each crew had field archaeologists and biologists and representatives from the tribes and Bureau of Land Management working closely with us to insure that we followed all procedures to protect sensitive areas from disturbance.

That meant in practice that local or BLM archaeologists and biologists led the way across the area where we intended to acquire data. Just as you see in the photos in the linked presentation (user 1970-01-01), teams of experts surveyed the land looking for sensitive or threatened plants and animals and archaeologists identified areas with cultural artifacts. These areas were flagged and that flagging placed them off limits to our operations. They were No-Go areas. We had permission to operate within a fairly narrow easement across the landscape with strict guidelines about vehicle access, allowable damage to existing vegetation and the landscape, trash removal, etc since that region is very arid and small things like orange peels become items that are recognizable centuries after they are discarded.

For this survey I expect that they staked the potential affected area and walked every bit of it using pin flags to mark things that are not to be disturbed. The area is only about 8 square miles so it shouldn't take that long.

KennyBlanken2• 2 years ago

Satellite/aerial imagery followed by more accurate surveying where necessary.

thelastgallon4• 2 years ago

I wonder if the tribes have enough autonomy to build transmission lines quickly. Just the Navajo Nation can build enough solar/wind and transmission lines within their reservation and probably connect to the grids in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. US is incredibly slow in building transmission lines, takes decades.

And, if they have enough autonomy to import Chinese panels (50% cheaper), a network of these nations can blanket the entire country with renewables.

xeonmc• 2 years ago

This would greatly enhance the usefulness of tribal-electricity.

EasyMark3• 2 years ago

I know it took my local utility about 5 years just to run about 30 miles of HV wire from me seeing "announcment of public commentary" -> studies -> "final notice of commentary on route" -> building starts. The building itself took about 6 months, as it ran along a road I travel a lot. That's a long time for 30 miles of HV towers.

adrianN5• 2 years ago

Oh, I thought you wanted to tell an anecdote about a fast project. Five years sound very quick to me.

bobthepanda4• 2 years ago

I'm ignorant of how this works, but aren't tribal nations exempt from at least state and local regs?

njarboe• 2 years ago

I would imagine that inside the land they control building lines could be quick but if they are exporting power (which I think is the main idea) they are not going to be able to have the autonomy to build the external lines they need.

huytersd2• 2 years ago

I like the idea of native Americans being the solar barons.

anonporridge4• 2 years ago

Related.

Even as energy production prices from solar trend towards zero, end user energy costs is still going to be lower bounded by transmission costs.

California in particular is getting a nasty taste of this, with many customer's bill being mostly transmission costs. However, this is largely because they're paying for PG&E's lawsuit payouts and regulatory required upgrades.

Energy can be free, but reliable and safe transmission will likely always be expensive.

AYBABTME• 2 years ago

The crazy thing is that CA has ample solar power and the average house likely can be entirely offgrid with a large enough battery system.

sciencesama• 2 years ago

May be start the manufacturing facility here and start panel manufacturing here itself !!

nonethewiser3• 2 years ago

Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China.

Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale.

I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the first step. Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages

justinwp3• 2 years ago

Transmission lines are already there because of the nearby decommissioned coal plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Generating_Station

yieldcrv3• 2 years ago

But also, it makes sense not to transmit power too far from where you are

yep, they’ll waste the energy trying to transmit it

sounds like they’re going to be attracting bitcoin miners. they’re the only use case that’s able to be in the middle of nowhere without needing other infrastructure, like robust internet.

any other use cases you all know of?

aorloff• 2 years ago

Powering a casino

yieldcrv3• 2 years ago

People have to commute to, well maybe. If more infrastructure comes up around there and people live there then its a nice long game.

sunshinesnacks• 2 years ago

they’ll waste the energy trying to transmit it

High voltage transmission lines are very efficient. On the order of 1-2% loses per 100 miles for 500 kV carrying 1000 MW [0].

[0] https://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/grady/_13_EE392J_2_Spring...

theptip• 2 years ago

Datacenter for AI training workloads.

yieldcrv3• 2 years ago

Thats pretty good if the data is already there, other data centers rely on heavier internet infrastructure

toast0• 2 years ago

Cabling in robust internet wouldn't be too hard, if that were the only factor. Pull fiber from Salt Lake City and Albuquerque, maybe Denver and Phoenix and boom. There's US highways in all directions, so you can pull along the road, most likely. You'd get at least two way redundancy going North and South, maybe three way if you take different paths to get to Phoenix and Albuquerque.

But you also need/want robust power delivery to run a datacenter, and a single local solar project isn't robust power delivery. If you had robust power delivery, those transmission lines could be used to export the solar, and it wouldn't make sense to put a datacenter there anymore.

justinwp3• 2 years ago

Transmission lines are already there because of the nearby decommissioned coal plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Generating_Station

throwaway420690• 2 years ago

They should definitely mine bitcoin. No transmission lines needed. Can use all of their excess power.

EasyMark3• 2 years ago

Most tribal governments have more respect for nature than that.

tfourb12• 2 years ago

Possibly the worst idea for what you can do with excess power.

lukan2• 2 years ago

"Having said that, we're going to be producing a large amount of power. So I'm not sure that all of it will be able to be consumed within Colorado."

Hopefully they can attract further industry, that will consume that cheap energy close to production. Metal smelting ones for example.

jeffbee2• 2 years ago

Refining lithium

latchkey15• 2 years ago

Metal smelting has the often frowned upon side effect of generating super fund sites.

adrianN5• 2 years ago

Hm? What kind of dangerous chemicals do you need to turn for example bauxite into aluminium?

HDThoreaun2• 2 years ago

Luckily the indian reservation has plenty of empty land to pollute.

ayk3• 2 years ago

Contrast this news with that of LPEA from neighboring Durango area putting a stop to new solar installation due to maxing out energy needs

https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/la-plata-electric-put...

KennyBlanken2• 2 years ago

Promote electric vehicles, heat pumps, inductive cooktops, and other decarbonization that would increase electricity demand since you've got a plethora of electricity? Nope.

Incentivize home energy storage and invest in grid level energy storage and encourage purchasing EVs that can be used as grid batteries? Nope.

Invest in better grid-level interconnects to export electricity? Nope.

Work with the community to attract industry that uses lots of electricity and approach commercial/industrial users to find ways to decarbonize? Nope.

Ban customers from new grid-intertied solar: YES.

Engage in scare-mongering about solar causing fires and being dangerous or causing grid instability when grid-intertie systems have a slew of safety mechanisms? YES.

Absolute morons.

Also buried in that article: they signed a contract with their wholesale provider mandating that they can only generate 5% of their own electricity. The article claims, but does not explain, how this doesn't limit solar generation - there's a bunch of hand-waiving about how "it doesn't prohibit homeowners from generating solar power."

That contract goes until 2050. Who looked at the electricity market and said "you know what? Let's sign a multi-decade contract, that seems smart!"?

Jgrubb• 2 years ago

I doubt they're morons, more likely perfectly intelligent and know exactly what they're doing and for whom.

skeyo• 2 years ago

Keep in mind, that contract was signed way back in 2000 and things were pretty different back then. I also believe it was signed by a primarily conservative LPEA board.

Kon5ole• 2 years ago

Energy production is a huge moneymaker that also happens to be government owned/taxed to a large degree in many countries. Solar panels and batteries are at the point where they will completely disrupt this entire industry.

Many incumbents will try their best to prevent it, and to be fair it's not entirely for malicious reasons. Energy taxes and income from power plants pay for a lot of community value. The income has to be replaced somehow if it is removed.

I think that solar + various storage options are technically already the best solution for energy supply, and this kind of political inertia is the main obstacle to overcome in order to make it a reality.

usefulcat• 2 years ago

A proposed solar farm on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation will have 2.2 million solar panels
Annual capacity is estimated to be about 756 megawatts.

756 MW/year = ~2 MW/day = less than 1 watt per day per panel?

I get that the sun doesn't shine 24/7, but even so that seems way off. What am I missing? Maybe the 756 MW figure is daily instead of annual?

newyankee2• 2 years ago

MW is power, MWh is energy. So annual should be 7564.5365 MWh

sp332• 2 years ago

You can escape your * with a \.

titzer• 2 years ago

Watts are a rate (energy/time), you don't need to divide them by time again.

patricklorio• 2 years ago

756 MW is the peak power rate, not accumulated amount of power that will be generated per year.

dgacmu3• 2 years ago

The article is bad, as so often happens with units... The project site: https://www.sunbearproject.com/

971MW, producing up to 1700 to 2400 GWh/year.

That puts it at 2471 hours/year of full-power production equivalent, or 28%. That's good - it's a nice area for solar.

g8oz• 2 years ago

The average solar power purchase agreement is $49 per megawatt hour¹. That is $49,000 per GWh. So if this plant can produce 1700 gigawatt hours per year then they would be able to earn on the order of $83,000,000 annually. Not too shabby.

(1)- https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-wind-renewable-energy...

angm128• 2 years ago

Should be more like 756 GWh

newZWhoDis• 2 years ago

756MW of capacity will produce ~3,024 MWH per day

“756MW of annual capacity” doesn’t make sense, given that MW is a measure of instantaneous power. They might mean that the average daily peak output over the whole year is 756MW?

oaththrowaway2• 2 years ago

Off topic, but does anyone know if Ute tribes share money with each other for big projects like this?

I'm pretty sure this tribe has a casino on their reservation, but I know the one in Utah doesn't, both get money from oil extraction, but I'm not sure if they are totally independent from each other?

latchkey15• 2 years ago

US is incredibly slow in building transmission lines, takes decades.

A lot of bitcoin miners use stranded power, which would otherwise go to waste. People often respond to me on HN that the power could be easily/cheaply sent elsewhere for better uses [0]. Comments like this just re-enforce the fact that these people have literally no idea what they are talking about. Thanks, I'll favorite this one. =)

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39317583

nextaccountic• 2 years ago

There is no law of nature that says that the pace of US infrastructure improvements should be like that. It's a matter of policy. The US has built impressive projects before at a staggering rate, and they could do so in the future. (currently China is doing the same but on a larger scale. It shows it is possible if you have the political will)

When people say that the power "could" be sent elsewhere, they are right, you just need to build the damn transmission lines. It's not rocket science.

latchkey15• 2 years ago

I'm referring to the whole picture not just platitudes.

The reality of the situation is that certainly a lot of stuff "could" happen, like Fusion and Nuclear power too.

hmottestad• 2 years ago

I think that “just need to” can be said about a lot of things. And even space x can build rockets, it’s not exactly brain surgery!

hannob• 2 years ago

A lot of bitcoin miners use stranded power, which would otherwise go to waste.

Often claimed, rarely supported by evidence or numbers.

It's also unlikely to be very practical, because that'd essentially mean running bitcoin miners in load-balancing mode, and not running them most of the time. Given that bitcoin hardware tends to loose value quickly, as the next generation of mining hardware comes to the market, this is unlikely to be a feasible model.

latchkey15• 2 years ago

I have evidence and numbers.

Update: I got downvoted for not posting them. I did in the link above though.

https://www.coinmint.one/ is the data center. They have about 500MW of power going to them from the Moses-Saunders dam.

They don't need to shut down cause it is hydro and 24/7. They actually help keep the dam running cause they balance the load coming from it. Just like the aluminum smelter before it did. The location of the facility and dam are near the border of Canada and the US. It is very remote and in the middle of nowhere with enough population to consume the 500MW. There are main grid lines going past them, but it would likely need new infrastructure to connect to it at that much power.

I've seen their power costs (including transmission), I can't post that, obviously. But, a large chunk of their costs, is transmission, which pays for the install and maintenance of the lines running the few miles from the dam. These are large / tall physical towers.

Disclosure: I'm a former very large scale bitcoin/litecoin/ethereum miner and now building an AI bare metal gpu service.

tw04• 2 years ago

A lot of bitcoin miners use stranded power, which would otherwise go to waste.

A lot of bitcoin miners are keeping fossil fuel spewing power plants from being retired because the regulations that keep power affordable for Americans haven’t caught up. There’s a reason China killed bitcoin mining and the US needs to follow suit. Literally killing the planet for imaginary coins that don’t solve any problems that weren’t already solved. Well, besides the whole anonymous ransom thing.

latchkey15• 2 years ago

I believe that the US should work to end coal plants regardless of who is buying power from them.

Oh and I'm more of a fan of Ethereum. They've now moved to PoS, which consumes a fraction of the power, and there is actual utility on that chain. Moved my bitcoin to wbtc too, but looking forward to more decentralized versions of it eventually.

anonporridge4• 2 years ago

There’s a reason China killed bitcoin mining and the US needs to follow suit.

According to this data, China tried, but failed to kill bitcoin mining. As of the last update in Jan 2022, China currently has 55% of the hashrate it had before the ban. https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/mining_map

Also, mining is a global industry. Banning it in one country is like grabbing a fist full of water. It just oozes out elsewhere. It looks like the China ban mostly oozed into the US and Kazakhstan, before rebounding back into China. The effective reduced total energy use from the China ban barely lasted 6 months before it surpassed previous levels.

This was the result of one of the strongest authoritarian surveillance states in the world. What makes you think anyone else can do better?

anonporridge4• 2 years ago

Bitcoin mining is a pioneer species, proving out the tapping of novel and remote energy sources and laying the initial infrastructure for more investment.

https://medium.com/the-bitcoin-times/bitcoin-is-a-pioneer-sp...

latchkey15• 2 years ago

As much as I appreciate articles like this, you're not going to win over the HN crowd with them. Especially now that Ethereum has been so successful with PoS and decimating power usage, not just on that chain, but all GPU based PoW chains.

dang• 2 years ago

If you know more than others, that's great—please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. But please don't post putdowns or shame other people for being wrong. We're all mostly wrong about most everything, after all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(We detached this offtopic subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39411064.)

doodlebugging8• 2 years ago

It would be more useful if that was the way that all (b)/(sh)itcoin miners operated. It is not like that here in Texas [0]. The state has even paid them multimillions of dollars to cut energy consumption during extreme weather periods. [1]

That money came straight from Texas citizens who gain nothing from the operations of these coin miners and who have already had to pay for the near collapse of the power grid back in Feb. 2021 which occurred because utilities are largely unregulated and can ignore requirements that they upgrade facilities or worse, just whine about the costs of bringing power generation plants into compliance with modern air quality standards like a bunch of rich spoiled toddlers. Many of these plants were grandfathered in when standards were established even though they would have been easy to upgrade at the time.

It is about time that the feds do what the Chinese did a few years ago and take a hard look at all the energy waste in shitcoin mining. [2]

In addition to energy consumption, this facility in Granbury, TX is already under fire for being a huge noise nuisance from the cooling fans that operate 24/7. [3]

[0] https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022698/how-voracious-bitcoin-m...

[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bitcoin-mining-cryptocurrency-r...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/large-cryptocurr...

[3] https://time.com/6590155/bitcoin-mining-noise-texas/

I understand from your replies that you had a personal stake in shitcoin mining and you're pivoting to something else. Maybe for you the handwriting is on the wall.

latchkey15• 2 years ago

If you're so upset at what happened in Texas, then you should speak up to your representatives there. To me, it sounds like a larger systemic issue than just Bitcoin mining.

I understand from your replies that you had a personal stake in shitcoin mining and you're pivoting to something else. Maybe for you the handwriting is on the wall.

This feels like a personal attack, which as I understand it, is against the guidelines. But, to explain... I worked for businesses with stakes. I didn't have it myself. That would be like blaming someone who works for SpaceX, for Elon's bad takes.

helsinkiandrew• 2 years ago

Having said that, we're going to be producing a large amount of power. So I'm not sure that all of it will be able to be consumed within Colorado.”

That’s a surprisingly vague statement on a billion dollar project. I’d expect there would be spreadsheets and models estimating production/consumption locations for decades out and the company would be quoting a percentage figure even if that was a guesstimate.

fnordpiglet• 2 years ago

I’d note that in 2024 $1bb isn’t THAT much money. Further the constraints will likely have more to do with distribution infrastructure outside their control.

psychlops• 2 years ago

When people say things like that you know they aren't spending their own money.

sitkack• 2 years ago

This could power data centers, then the only outside link needed is fiber optic lines.

latchkey15• 2 years ago

Correct. Data centers over casinos.

But then again, those data centers could have bitcoin miners, at which point, we'd be back to the casino. =)

alexpotato2• 2 years ago

Whenever I see comments about how slow public projects are these days, I think about this documentary: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/race-under...

It's a PBS special about the history of the Boston subway (which was one of the first in the nation).

To give you an idea of what construction safety was like back then, they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working.

Obviously, this led to lots of explosions but also very quick construction. If you are optimizing for speed over safety/environmental/etc it's pretty surprising how quickly you can build something.

zdragnar2• 2 years ago

Safety usually isn't the problem. It's the public notice periods, feedback collection, final notices, environmental impact studies, lawsuits over whether the environmental impact studies were sufficient, possible need to get the government to invoke eminent domain, studies over which potential version of a project needs the least disruption, and so forth.

Near where I live is a bridge over a river that needs replacing. The county had to study three different ways to do it, weighing environmental impact, traffic disruption, total cost of each option, and so forth.

The planning and regulatory portion of the project is easily 75% of the timeline, and that's for a fast one due to the condition of the bridge itself. If it were less urgent, it would have likely taken even longer.

AtlasBarfed3• 2 years ago

Meanwhile collapsed Minneapolis I-35W bridge (remember that? Gusset plates, etc?) got replaced in something like 7 months, they picked a colorado company and started construction very quickly. Of course a half dozen local construction companies filed suit but the bridge was built really fast.

Right next door to that bridge are three other projects: a cliff/dirt collapse/erosion/retaining project that kept the river parkway closed for like 4 years, and two bridges being reconditioned that have been closed for 3. Those went through the "normal" channels.

adrianmonk• 2 years ago

they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working

That's still done today, evidently! A few months back, there was a small gas leak in my neighborhood. When they knocked on my door to say they'd be working in the area, the repair crew leader was kind enough to indulge my questions.

I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!

And they must have been cutting into the gas line because they replaced a section that ran under the street. They used a backhoe to dig huge holes on both sides of the street and then fed a flexible pipe through.

Here's a video about something kind of similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCMs__ZnOfA

I'm sure today's techniques are different and much safer, so I don't think it negates your point that they used to do risky stuff.

lostapathy2• 2 years ago

I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!

My understanding is that most "last mile" gas lines are pretty low pressure and low flow. On purpose, so that if theirs a leak they aren't releasing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere in a hurry, so the concentration doesn't raise to dangerous levels.

Then when they are working on the lines and in those pits to make connections, they have detectors to tell if there's a dangerous build up, and ventilation to ensure it doesn't happen anyway.

The system generally being low pressure is why sometimes during really cold periods when demand is high, the gas company has to adjust field regulators to increase flow so that demand can be met. They normally run at low enough flow that if everyone's furnace and stove and water heater all run at once, the lines would effectively run out of gas.

bobthepanda4• 2 years ago

part of the issue in 2024 is that the ground is a lot fuller than it used to be, so it takes more time. In some cases, like in New York, step one is figuring out where any of that stuff even is, because for privately owned infrastructure the maps are not public or even shared with government, and in some cases the infrastructure is so old that the maps are not accurate, if they are even available.

we now build projects to relocate utilities (so that you don't have to shut down a subway line to replace an adjacent water pipe) but that stuff is costly and everyone is prepared to sue the other in case of a mess-up. but there is a lot of the physical version of tech debt; New York is still replacing wood and lead piping, for example.

alexpotato2• 2 years ago

The New York City subway was built by:

- digging down a small amount (in contrast to London where they dug DEEP under everything else)

- rerouting ALL of the existing pipes etc (you can find photos of the rerouted gas lines)

- Putting in the subway

- Putting everything back

0xGod• 2 years ago

Incredible news and momentum. The entire land will have an advanced smart renewable grid that scales to any size and is very fault-tolerant and self-recovering. It is beautiful to observe the Melting Pot producing great ideas and vast installations of great systems. Great job all around and it's encouraging to observe communities joining forces and brains to work on planet-scale problems. Godspeed, USA! The Melting Pot will continue to lead the world in producing cultural exchange and elevation for all communities.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

wkat4242• 2 years ago

Lol a Ute in Australia means a pickup truck. I first thought it meant that lol.

krupan4• 2 years ago

Just like damming rivers to generate carbon free energy turned them into lakes and changed the climate and ecosystems that we are trying to preserve, paving over many square miles of land with solar panels (that will all end up in landfills eventually) will change ecosystems and climates. Carbon gas is not the only thing we need to be focused on if preserving our earth the way it is is our goal.

Low carbon and low footprint options like nuclear should be our top priority. All this focus on wind and solar power is a distraction from real long-term solutions to preserving our ecology and climate.

tomrod• 2 years ago

we are trying to preserve

That's the trick of it. Turns out "leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures" philosophy doesn't scale. We can respect andanage nature while recognizing we are part of it too.

defrost2• 2 years ago

turned them into lakes and changed the climate

Global climate? or strictly local area effects?

Global nuclear currently generates approximately half the energy that hydropower does, and less than an eighth of that generated by coal and gas which is the goal to replace - to replace that with nuclear will take many many years which will then no longer be "low foot print".

All this focus on wind and solar is largely because it is delivering replacement power now and at less cost than nuclear.

paving over many square miles of land with solar panels

You can graze animals | have market gardens | etc. underneath you know (maybe you don't, perhaps you might wish to learn more).

Solar farm trial shows improved fleece on merino sheep grazed under panels

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-graz...

newfriend• 2 years ago

two what? did you say Utes?

ric0c1• 2 years ago

Sorry, but with the thousands of square miles of parking that we have in the US, it seems very very stupid to do greenfield solar power, particularly in one of the few zones where the ecosystem is preserved.

The Ute Tribe will construct one of the largest solar farms in the US

Related Stories