A Solar Land Rush

By Todd Woody
SolarEPA Solar companies are vying for land leases as the federal government identifies “solar study areas.”

The Department of the Interior’s move last month to accelerate development of large-scale solar power plants on federal land in six Western states could give an edge to companies that have already staked lease claims in 24 new “solar energy study areas.”

The initiative covers 670,000 acres overseen by the department’s Bureau of Land Management in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah. During the solar land rush of the last two years, scores of developers large and small have sought the best solar sites, and the bureau is currently reviewing 158 lease applications for solar projects covering 1.8 million acres.

But the B.L.M. has yet to approve any leases and the new program is supposed to speed processing of land claims by identifying large tracts of the desert most suitable for solar development and then giving priority to projects proposed for those areas.

California’s huge electricity market and renewable energy mandates have made the state a magnet for solar developers, including FPL Group and Chevron as well as solar developers First Solar, Tessera Solar, Solar Millennium, SolarReserve and Solel as well as wind farm builder enXco, a subsidiary of French energy giant EDF.

Across the border in Nevada, Goldman Sachs subsidiary Cogentrix Energy has filed lease claims on 35,996 acres within solar energy study zones, according to B.L.M. records.

“It’ll help them compete against other projects not in the zone,” said Nathaniel Bullard, a North American solar analyst at New Energy Finance, a London-based research and consulting firm. “But I don’t think it will make a project vault past projects on private land.”

That’s because the B.L.M. process, fast-tracked or not, can still be an 18-month affair. In fact, the Interior Department said it won’t complete its evaluation of the solar zones until the end of 2010.

Still, the solar initiative appears to have sparked something of a mini-land rush. On Monday, the B.L.M. received two solar project proposals for land in that state’s study areas, according to Eddie Arreola, the Arizona renewable energy program manager for the B.L.M., who declined to identify the solar developers until their applications are deemed complete.

For smaller solar developers, lease claims in a solar zone may make them an attractive acquisition target, said Mr. Bullard.

For instance, when First Solar, a Tempe, Ariz.-based solar cell maker and power plant developer, acquired the assets of OptiSolar in March, it cited the company’s B.L.M. lease claims as a driver of the deal.

And Spain’s Iberdrola, the world’s largest wind developer, jumped into the solar business last year by quietly acquiring Pacific Solar Investments, a Henderson, Nev., start-up and with B.L.M. lease claims in Arizona, California and Nevada.

Also sitting in the catbird seat in California is Bull Frog Green Energy, a Nevada start-up co-founded by Dan Kabel, the chief executive of Spanish solar developer Acciona Energy’s American operations. Among Bull Frog’s solar lease claims are two tracts in the California solar energy study areas.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Paul July 13, 2009 · 9:43 am

Or instead, they could have put billions into the stimulus for local government funding for rooftop solar for businesses and homes all over the country, keeping the power generation right where it is used. Instead, we are concentrating it all in the desert and staying with the centralized utility model.

Solar energy is being used as an excuse to convert additional land to urban/industrial when there are billions of already-paved acres that could be generating power.

doug l July 13, 2009 · 9:58 am

I’m both pleased and not-so-pleased at this news. Movement towards using solar and other practical power sources available in nature is appealing but some sort of restraint based on values aside from the bottom need to be addressed somehow and undoubtedly in a way that costs something to somebody, we know ultimately who will pay. Keeping this process open, transparent and exposed is a good way to know if we’re actually making progress or just spinning our fiscal wheels and expanding the size of the contracts.

Anamouse July 13, 2009 · 11:51 am

Solar is by far the most expensive source of power, even more expensive than wind, and much more expensive then nuclear. Without serious subsidizes no one would be using it.

While everyone else claps their hands I take my hat off, bow my head and cover my heart. I know these solar installations are just huge wastes of money.

Solar Fred July 13, 2009 · 12:28 pm

Anamouse, #3. Solar is subsidized, it’s true. But so is nuclear. So is gas, coal, corn, cotton, and many other things we know. love, and use.

It’s not a question of subsidies, but what we do with subsidies. Wait until you see the money that goes into cleaning up the effects of global warming, such as drought, more floods, hurricanes, beach erosion.

Solar needs to be subsidized for now, but give it a few more years, say 2016, when the 30% tax credit expires.

These solar installations are only a huge waste of money if they actually don’t last (which they will for 25 years or longer) and don’t reduce carbon emissions from the atmosphere (which they certainly will.)

Thanks. For more on solar basics and solar financing for residents, please check out my blog at //www.solarfred.com.

Thank you.

jerryd July 13, 2009 · 12:32 pm

#1 Paul has it right, solar panel belong on homes, small businesses where the most savings/profit is made at the least cost, not out in some desert.

#3 Anamouse is a decade behind the times. PV is less costly than new nuke as solar is coming in at under $7k/kw now installed vs nuke at $9k/kw. And PV is dropping fast while nuke is going higher and requires buying, storing fuel.

Both wind a CSP are close to cost with coal and better than NG and as the price of coal rises, both are cheaper than coal by far over the next 20 yrs.

Even better is on homes where CSP supplies both power and heat making it much more eff and can run on wood pellets or any fuel if heat or power is needed and the sun doesn’t shine. The good thing about solar is it happens most when power is needed most so much more valuable.

So focus on home RE because it has a payback in 1/2 the time of solar, wind farms.

Solar July 14, 2009 · 11:12 am

i found a website that was illegally stealing your articles – //www.solarplaza.com

stop killing wilderness! July 14, 2009 · 12:54 pm

Hmmm, so Chevron, BP and Goldman Sachs are behind most of the Big Solar projects. So we definitely know they are good for the ratepayers, taxpayers and environment. I mean, these are companies we have opened our veins for for 100 years – why not give away our future to them, too??

People, we need to get a LOT more active in pushing for loans and feed in tariffs. Slovenia, Mongolia and Iran just implemented more progressive energy policies (where WE are paid for producing clean power without killing wilderness) than anywhere in North America. How is it that 50 other countries get it and we don’t? See paragraph 1.

Big Solar, Big Wind and Big Transmission will GREATLY INCREASE GLOBAL WARMING WHILE DESTROYING US, FINANCIALLY. I don’t know how anyone with half a brain can still support them now that the environmental facts, the political scheming and the financial facts are out there for us all to research.

Please, push your legislators to fund REAL renewable energy projects, located within the built environment, primarily at point of use and owned by US, not these Robber Barons. Wake up!

Beach Economist July 14, 2009 · 5:20 pm

Whenever discussing the energy industry it helps to first establish agreed upon goals and metrics. Otherwise we simply are talking past one another. For example, is the goal to achieve the most efficient energy production or the least environmentally damaging energy production or the least foreign-sourced energy production? To be sure there is some goal overlap, but useful discussion requires setting agreed upon goals and priorities (don’t forget using standard metrics, too). Many of the comments posted demonstrate the confusion and frustration that occurs when goals and priorities are not agreed upon.

rt123 July 14, 2009 · 6:17 pm

jerryd, you’re right that solar is cheaper than nuclear when comparing installed cost per kw, but you need to look at the the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) over a 25 year period to determine which is a cheaper generator of electricity. if you did, you would see that the LCOE is lower for nuclear than it is for solar so i don’t believe it’s fair to criticize anamouse for being a decade slow. nuclear power should be a part of everyone’s renewable discussion. also, the same is true when comparing csp to coal over a 25 year life given current csp costs so I have to disagree with you there also. if csp gets cheaper or more efficient in the coming years (which is likely), that gap will narrow, but for current projects coal is still cheaper. that does not mean i’m not in favor of solar as i’m a big proponent, but we should argue for it for the right reasons. unfortunately, cost cannot be one of those reasons right now.

Wil C. Fry July 14, 2009 · 10:03 pm

I have to say I’m disappointed to hear that more of America’s frontier will be plastered over with solar panels, hundreds (if not thousands) of miles from where the power is actually needed.

Your first commenter had it right — Every city in the U.S. is just begging to be covered with solar panels, but instead, we’re going to cover the wilderness with solar cells. We already have billions of square feet — such as rooftops, awnings, covered bridges, etc. — where nature is already gone. And then transmission isn’t a problem either.

The only problem with my suggestion is that these huge companies then wouldn’t have as big a helping in the profits.

Jim Smith July 16, 2009 · 5:13 pm

Yet another use of PUBLIC LANDS for PRIVATE PROFIT.

These mega-corporations should buy or lease private land for their private profit schemes.

Only nonprofits or public utilities should be allowed to use PUBLIC LANDS for energy development (exploitation).

doug July 17, 2009 · 12:41 am

Does anyone know how much the solar will lease for per acre ?

Doug

Seth Wilson July 18, 2009 · 7:29 pm

There is a more sustainable renewable energy alternative.
Community Choice Aggrigation programs are available in several states. CCA allows the cities/communities to decide how to buy their electricity. Instead of buying energy produced from large central power stations and “wheeling” it in on large transmission lines, cities could choose to buy from energy providers who place pv panels on the roofs of businesses and residences.

Using the right financial structure, investors looking for tax-equity benefits would receive similar incentives to go local. Once the facility is fully depreciated and the project ROI is achieved (8 to 12 years), the ownership transfers to the CCA and produces FREE energy for its remaining life (20 to 25 years).

To ensure the value of that FREE energy, a good maintenace program is required. This creates new and lasting (sustainable) green jobs close to home.

This model can start today and does not require federal permiting or new transmission. To start this model, talk to your city council, mayor and county commissioner.

//www.local.org/
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTk0olOZps

tmullins August 2, 2009 · 6:43 pm

I would invite any solar energy corporation to come visit Wise County, Virginia where there’s plenty of land that’s been destroyed by mountaintop removal and is virtually worthless.

//www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

We need the jobs !

lori August 16, 2009 · 11:09 pm

I am interested in finding out about companies interested in leasing land for solar farms.

Dan August 19, 2009 · 5:37 pm

prime California 15 plus acres ready for lease for solar, Zoned M-4 power generation 100 feet from power sub station.
PRIME CA LOCATION FOR THIS PROJECT.

Rob LHI August 31, 2009 · 9:09 pm

Why would they want to use BLM land? Why they can buy or lease privet land heck I would lease or sale my 640 acres I own in Yavapai County Arizona
And if it water they are worried about heck I have 2 well hitting water at 6 feet and one at 10 feet

Steven December 29, 2009 · 10:50 am

Check out these designs that combine solar energy and wind energy!

//one-earth.com/city/us/ny/brooklyn/1463/smit-sustainably-minded-interactive-technology

Looks like the company was started by a few Pratt students in Brooklyn, NY.

Joshua Phillips January 14, 2010 · 9:06 pm

Lock up your Solar Panels

Super-Strong and Fast-Curing Adhesive/Sealant Specifically made for Metal Parts. WEICONLOCK products are high quality anaerobic adhesives and sealants on the basis of special methacrylate resins, especially made for economical thread locking, retaining and sealing of threaded, cylindrical and pipe assemblies. Works with (Chrome, Zinc, Nickel, Stainless Steel and Aluminum)

The characteristic feature of WEICONLOCK is the curing in contact with metal while deprived of air. It provides a shock- and vibration-resistant joint with excellent resistance to chemicals and solvents. Due to its liquid consistency WEICONLOCK completely fills the gaps, thus giving protection against leakage and fretting corrosion. The only way to disassemble is with a blowtorch. A 20ml pen will lock a typical array for under $15!

AT 302-60 thread locking, higher viscosity, high strength, hard to disassemble. Available in 20, 50 and 200 ml. FHWM-AA-600

Available in the U.S. exclusively from Free Hot Water
//www.freehotwater.net/materials.html
//www.freehotwater.net/WEICONLOCK.pdf

Contact: Joshua Phillips
Phone: (408) 569-1897
Email: Joshua@freehotwater.net