https://www.breitbart.com/poli...e-forest-solar-farm/

A “top state official” confirmed the Michigan DNR’s plans to clear the acres of state forest for a solar farm to MLive.com.

The acres being cleared from the state forest are reportedly among the “4,000 acres of public land” throughout Michigan that will be leased in order to address decreased “revenues from hunting and fishing licenses,” as well as Michigan falling “behind building enough renewable energy.”

Leasing 4,000 acres of public land statewide is partof the DNR’s plan to help remedy both problems in coming years. Officials said that state solar initiative may begin just west of Gaylord.

DNR officials also reportedly “recently assessed 1,200 acres of public trust land in Otsego County near a major power transmission line to decide whether it was suitable for solar arrays,” according to the outlet.

The Daily Wire reported that Chris Martz, a meteorology student, had “published a chart showing nuclear power produces far more power on less land than solar and wind.”

I thought that solar panels are inefficient at higher latitudes, like oh...Michigan.

I found this 2005 article, but it made my head spin.

https://www.altenergymag.com/a...erent-latitudes/120/

Are solar panels efficient in Michigan?

That seems wasteful.

How many knuckle draggers will they have to hire to keep the snow off the panels.

I drive by my township government offices quite often and look at the good-sized solar panel array they have erected on the taxpayer dime.
I know you all will be as shocked as I was when I noticed that this time of year, the array is covered in snow!
And another, much larger array is being planned for Sands Township.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
That seems wasteful.

And stupid.

I find it particularly ironic that it's the Department of Natural Resources that's pulling this stupid stunt.

IOW: The state agency whose ostensible purpose is to protect our natural resources is instead participating in a plan to destroy them.

You can't make this stuff up.

Never mind we're talking solar in northern latitudes, many cloudy days in wintertime, and then there's the snow.

One of my best friends has a sizable solar array atop his largest pole barn in upper lower Michigan.

From sometime in November through sometime in March he turns the breakers to everything off when they leave the cabin. The amount of sunlight isn't sufficient to offset the minor draw of what would be left running when they leave (cellular modem, WiFi APs, a couple other minor things, the system's own parasitic draw—less then 100W total) to keep the batteries from exhausting—even when the array isn't snow-covered.

So this is about as brain-dead a thing to do as I can imagine.

It comes as no surprise from the Whitmer administration, however. Leftists and rational thought aren't well-acquainted with one another.

quote:

“eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle

I wonder how much CO₂ the forest being cut down would scrub from the atmosphere if left intact? That lost CO₂ scrub should be deleted from the CO₂ saved.

quote:

According to the EPA, a typical acre of forest in the United States sequesters around 0.84 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, meaning it removes that amount of CO2 from the atmosphere annually.

http://www.forestecologynetwor...%20acre%20per%20year.

My family has property NE of Gaylord. My sister and brother in law were snowmobiling up there mid December and the trails in the Jordan River State Game area were closed for 'construction'.

They said it looked like they were doing logging.

Guess this explains that....

quote:

I wonder how much CO₂ the forest being cut down would scrub from the atmosphere if left intact? That lost CO₂ scrub should be deleted from the CO₂ saved.

Excellent point!

"Green energy" is BS and shoved down our throats.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:

quote:

I wonder how much CO₂ the forest being cut down would scrub from the atmosphere if left intact? That lost CO₂ scrub should be deleted from the CO₂ saved.

Excellent point!

"Green energy" is BS and shoved down our throats.

How much heat does the typical one acre of solar panels emit, coupled with the amount of heat not generated by 1 acres of trees...

quote:

Originally posted by Rightwire:
My family has property NE of Gaylord. My sister and brother in law were snowmobiling up there mid December and the trails in the Jordan River State Game area were closed for 'construction'.

They said it looked like they were doing logging.

Guess this explains that....

With such a stupid decision to clear forestland for solar arrays, it makes me wonder what their plan is for the removed trees.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
That seems wasteful.

And stupid.

And a blight on the landscape!

EnvironMentalists, hell bent on pushing their EnvironMentalism fallacy, and destroying the natural beauty of the environment!

Whether it makes sense depends on their mission. If it's to protect the environment, it's stupid. If it's to fleece the taxpayer and enrich friends, it makes perfect sense.

Hmm. Taking state forest land to put a garbage solar farm which won't pay for itself only to be cancelled then the land sold off. Sounds like a long term graft to make eligible the land for purchase which would not have been available before the guaranteed failure project.

I can hear it now: "We sure lost a lot of money on the solar farm. We sure could recoup some funds by selling off the land for pennies on the dollar to my friends."

Why not clear the blight of Detroit and put them there? They can generate power for a high-voltage fence. Win-Win!

Pure Michigan!

I'm sure they are going to use carbon neutral 100% electric equipment made from recycled material to clear the land since they are so worried about that evil CO₂ stuff.

Great...

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Why not clear the blight of Detroit and put them there? They can generate power for a high-voltage fence. Win-Win!

That got me thinking - if someone in authority were to suggest this, oh what the outcry would be. Yet who speaks for the denizens of the acreage to be cleared? Isn't there some miniscule salamander or species of amoeba that needs protecting in that area?

How did this plan survive an environmental impact survey/report/plan/etc.? It would be interesting to see the results of a proper investigation of this action.