Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

ksut.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 302 posts

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

#31

Post by CogitoCogito »

solardev wrote: post #26
CogitoCogito wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

This doesn’t actually contradict anything I said (maybe you never intended to contradict me?). But yes you are in fact correct.

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

#32

Post by kitten_mittens_ »

loeg wrote: post #15

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?

> 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

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

#33

Post by hooo »

dangrossman wrote: post #25
hooo wrote: post #8

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 e…

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.

No one mentioned coal

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

#35

Post by appplication »

hooo wrote: post #8

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 e…

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.

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

#36

Post by solardev »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #31
solardev wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This doesn’t actually contradict anything I said (maybe you never intended to contradict me?). But yes you are in fact correct.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said, just noting that it's not so much "what they call themselves" that determines their status, but whether they were able to secure federal recognition before the treaties stopped.

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

#37

Post by dangrossman »

hooo wrote: post #33
dangrossman wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one mentioned coal

I did. If you object to building solar farms, there will be more coal mined.

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

#38

Post by dangrossman »

hooo wrote: post #30
werdnapk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

That's financially and politically impossible on a relevant time scale, while solar can be built now.

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

#39

Post by wavefunction »

Solvency wrote: post #10

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.

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-...)

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

#40

Post by CogitoCogito »

solardev wrote: post #36
CogitoCogito wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t actually contradict anything I said (maybe you never intended to contradict me?). But yes you are in fact correct.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said, just noting that it's not so much "what they call themselves" that determines their status, but whether they were able to secure federal recognition before the treaties stopped.

I see yes this was my original point (though you expanded a bit more than I did). The question of whether they call themselves a tribe or a nation or something else doesn’t really have much bearing on things.
Post reply on HN