Connect with us

Published

on

In many parts of the American southwest, a mesa is a flat topped geological formation known as a tableland. One of them is the Morman Mesa, a 149,000 acre tableland located above the confluence of the Muddy and Virgin Rivers, north of Las Vegas, Nevada.

The area is under the control of the federal Bureau of Land Management and is a protected area for the desert tortoise. It is also the home of Double Negative, an artistic rendering by artist Micheal Heizer. It consists of two trenches 30 feet wide, 50 feet deep, and 1500 feet long dug into the Earth. It is significant that the 244,000 tons of rocks excavated to create the “sculpture” were unceremoniously dumped into the valley below during its construction. More about that later.

Several years ago, a plan spearheaded by then Senator Harry Reid was put forward to build Battle Born Solar Project, the largest solar power plant in the United States, on Mormon Mesa. The project would cover 14 square miles — about 9000 acres, or less than 7% of the mesa’s total area. Over time, the project developer became Solar Partner VII, a subsidiary of California based Arevia.

Even though the project would be sited out of sight of nearby towns, it provoked a fierce backlash from the local community, a backlash that coalesced into something called Save Our Mesa. At the end of July, Arevia notified BLM it was abandoning the project. The Save Our Mesa folks were ecstatic.

The group argued such a large installation would be an eyesore and curtail the area’s popular recreational activities such as riding dirt bikes and ATVs and skydiving. It also said it would discourage tourists from visiting Heizer’s Double Negative sculpture. But the heart of the protest was “not in my backyard” self-interest. Let’s take a look at the overheated language presented on the group’s website.

I first want to make it clear that we are just a group of residents that saw a possible tragedy for our community and our way of life. We are NOT against renewable energy, we are against irresponsible decisions that are being made without sufficient studies as to what the impacts are.

The majority of our community’s revenue comes from tourism. We lost a lot of tourism and businesses when the shrinking lake levels of Lake Mead occurred closing a nearby beach. We have struggled but built back our economy through tourism. When people come and camp/hotel for a week, they buy our gas, our groceries, eat in our restaurants, use our mechanics and parts stores. This allows these businesses to thrive thus keeping us self sufficient. Feedback from many of our Snowbirds was that they would look for new places to go ‘[if the solar power plant was built]. That’s lost revenue. 

We were simply trying to save our community and our way of life. We are not expendable for the “greater good” as I was told we should be! Moapa Valley would NOT gain anything from this project. In fact the power was slated for California. So why should we sacrifice OUR lives? The solar farm that was being proposed was going to be the largest in the nation. 14 sq miles, equivalent to 2/3 the size of Manhattan. Our homes are less than 8000’ from it.

There aren’t enough studies to show what this size of a project would do to us. Will our temps be too hot to live here, would the dust choke us or make us sick, would we ever get rainfall? Would our rivers, that run down both sides of the Mesa into Lake Mead, get contaminated? The list goes on. These were SERIOUS concerns! Simply “saying” that won’t happen, was not good enough, we were essentially going to be lab rats. Our goal all along was to get them to move this project to a more appropriate location, in which they have stated is one of their reasons for withdrawal.

Why are we not pushing for rooftop solar as much as we are pushing to destroy the desert southwests public lands? Look at the rooftops available in major metropolitan areas alone!! Las Vegas has thousands of acres of rooftop with the casinos alone!

We need to slow this rush to solar farms in the desert until studies are done. What will it look like in 10, 20, or 30 years down the road when all these solar farms age out. Are we creating a bigger problem for our future generations when there is millions of tons of non-recyclable waste? The deserts would never recover. Once it’s done, it can’t be undone.

Dissecting The Opposition

OK. That’s quite a long list of complaints Save Our Mesa has got there. And some of them are valid. If the Battle Born Solar Project did actually have a negative impact on the local economy [the developers says it would create over 2,000 new jobs], that would be a valid reason to oppose it. But many of the group’s complaints are 100% pure horse puckey.

A solar power plant will create dust that will roll down and pollute the local lakes and rivers, but thousands of people tearing up the landscape on dirt bikes, off-road vehicles, and jeeps won’t? That strains credulity. Millions of tons of non-recyclable waste? Where did they hear that, Tucker Carlson? And what about the 244,000 tons of debris from the Double Negative project that got dumped into the valley below. Was that used to mulch the petunias in local flower beds?

That seems like the comment left recently on a story I did about Toyota and its anti-EV policies. “Super smart move, let’s all replace CO2 emissions with toxic batteries that end up in rivers and lakes.” Yup, there’s some certified Artificial Stupidity right there.

Selfishness And Self-Interest

NIMBYism is strong in some of the group’s complaints. Why should they provide electricity to those pinheads in San Francisco and LA? The connection between an overheating planet and a lack of water to fill Lake Mead apparently is too remote for them to comprehend. But people are funny. Folks in Wyoming wonder the same thing about wind farms that supply power to West Coast nerds. Those who live in western New York are none too keen about giving up their farmland to keep the lights on in New York City.

Can you suggest a strategy that might help get people onboard with renewable energy? How about cutting them in on the deal by sharing some of that clean energy with the local community? That’s such a no brainer that it’s hard to believe every renewable energy developer doesn’t make it part of their toolkit every time a project is proposed.

Would the attitudes of local residents change if they could have access to clean energy at an attractive price? How about helping them get residential storage batteries that would keep their lights on if there is a power outage?

The Takeaway

A lot of the complaints about the Battle Born Solar Project are overblown, but there is a kernel of reality to them. People who are worried about their personal finances are inclined to be a little bit skittish about slick-talking outsiders riding into town with a trunk load of fancy promises. I’m nobody from nowhere, but I know a developer has to offer the locals something to get them to buy in to all those pie-in-the-sky plans.

You wouldn’t expect a new car customer to buy an EV just because it’s good for the planet, would you? Why should renewable energy be any different? These developers don’t seem to have a very good understanding of human behavior. Yes, the locals doth protest too much, but the developer deserves some blame for handling the public relations aspect of its project so poorly.

Why spend all that time and money on plans and permits but none on some good old-fashioned salesmanship? The US and the world are the big losers in this deal.

[Editor’s note: Some research in Denmark several years ago found that a critical solution to avoid NIMBYism blocking large wind power projects was to bring the financial benefits to locals to some degree — give them a cut of the profits. I’m not sure how much that insight is used by large renewable energy project developers, but as Steve says, at this stage, “it’s hard to believe every renewable energy developer doesn’t make it part of their toolkit every time a project is proposed.” My impression, though, is that not much is offered to local communities in almost all cases. Promises of jobs and an economic boost, of course, but not clear direct benefits to nearby residents. —Zach]

Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla is ending its referral program on April 30th worldwide

Published

on

By

Tesla is ending its referral program on April 30th worldwide

Tesla is once again axing its referral program, which allowed owners to earn prizes by referring new buyers to buy a Tesla.

For many years now, Tesla has offered some sort of program to allow current owners to benefit from evangelizing the brand.

It started early on, when Tesla owners recognized that they had “sold” several Teslas to their friends via test drives, conversations, and so on, and owners asked Tesla to implement a scheme to give them referral rewards.

The program was originally launched in 2015, and has evolved many times since then. It started off as a direct $1,000 reward, but later turned into various tier systems, point systems, and so on.

A buyer would use a current owner’s referral link to place an order, and in return the buyer would get some sort of benefit (a discount, some free supercharging, or some free FSD access), and the referrer would get credit towards some sort of prize.

At one point, Tesla even promised free or discounted next-gen Roadsters, and ended up promising giving away around 80 of them – or at least, promising to, whenever that car (or is it even a car?) may or may not finally get made.

Unsurprisingly, after promising such substantial prizes, Tesla substantially reduced the prizes available in 2019, and later ended the program for everything except solar roof in 2021.

But the next year, Tesla brought the referral program back, though again in a more limited form. This version would give buyers either temporary free supercharging, temporary FSD access, temporary premium connectivity, or $500 off a new vehicle (depending on when you purchased the vehicle), and referrers would get credits that could be redeemed in Tesla’s shop for merchandise or accessories.

It also occasionally offered special prizes like accelerated Cybertruck delivery, invites to the Cybertruck delivery event, or entries into vehicle sweepstakes that could be purchased with referral credits.

However, all of that is ending now, on April 30th. Tesla announced today that the referral program will be shut down in all markets on that date.

Tesla has not yet updated the legalese on its referral page, so we don’t know the specifics yet of how it will be retired. Orders made before April 30th may still qualify for credits if delivered after April 30th, and referral credits already earned may be redeemable after that date (Sawyer Merritt says both of these things will be true, but we don’t know his source for that). Given that credits earned beforehand do have an expiry date, we expect that Tesla will have to honor them until their expiry date, but some rewards may disappear before those expiry dates come.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla cuts prices by $2,000 in US, Model Y back to its lowest price ever

Published

on

By

Tesla cuts prices by ,000 in US, Model Y back to its lowest price ever

Tesla has dropped the price of the Model Y, Model S and Model X by $2,000 each in the US. Model 3 prices remain the same, as do prices of the newly-released Cybertruck.

Tesla has had quite the week, between firing 10% of its workforce and losing two key executives, filing to get CEO Elon Musk’s voided $55 billion pay package reinstated, and putting its upcoming $25k car on hold.

All this news comes after disappointing quarterly delivery results, with inventory rising to high levels.

Perhaps in anticipation of these poor delivery results, last quarter, Tesla put a “temporary” discount on the Model Y its most popular vehicle (and the world’s best-selling vehicle), lowering prices by $1,000 for just a few weeks. After that discount lapsed, it warned buyers ahead of time that prices would increase again by $1,000 at the end of the quarter.

Those prices did indeed increase on April 1 – but now, less than three weeks later, the price is back down again.

As of today, Tesla has dropped prices on all trims of its Model Y, along with the Model S and Model X as well.

The Model Y RWD now starts at $42,990, down from $44,990. Model Y Long Range is $47,990, when it was previously $49,990. Model Y Performance is now $51,490, previously $53,490.

This is equivalent to the price of the Model Y during Tesla’s temporary discount in February, which only lasted a couple weeks.

Tesla’s more expensive Model S and X vehicles are now cheaper as well. While $2,000 isn’t as big a chunk of either of their prices, they’ve got the same discount as the Model Y did, with $2k taken off of each trim.

The Model S Long Range now starts at $72,990 and Model S Plaid at $87,990, with the Model X Long Range starting at $77,990 and Model X Plaid at $92,990.

This also happens to be the lowest price for the Model X ever, which also qualifies for the federal tax credit and thus could cost as little as $70,490 upfront (assuming you’re under the income cap, which many buyers of that vehicle won’t be).

Tesla has not referred to this as a “temporary” discount, unlike it did with Model Y’s last discount. This seems to just be a standard random Tesla price cut, as we’ve seen quite often, especially in the last couple years.

The Model 3, which recently received a big refresh and is about to receive an updated “ludicrous” performance spec, still has the same purchase price as yesterday. However, as of two days ago, Tesla is now offering a $299/mo lease on the Model 3, whereas previously it had charged $329/mo.

Cheapest US Model Y ever?

At $42,990 base price, the Model Y is now a “$35k car” after taking into account federal EV incentives, which are now available upfront at point-of-sale.

This $35,490 post-incentive price is tied for the cheapest price for the Tesla Model Y in the US yet, though the previous time Model Ys were this cheap was considered a “temporary discount” by Tesla. It beats the previous “permanent” low price of $36,490.

Early on, Tesla had offered a Standard Range Model Y as low as $39,990, but at the time it did not qualify for the tax credit as Tesla’s credits under the previous law had run out. Plus, it only appeared on the site for orders for a couple weeks, showing up in early January 2021, then getting a price cut in February before being removed from the configurator a week later. It was supposedly still available “off menu” as a custom order for a while.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

VW Chattanooga plant, where ID.4 is made, votes to unionize in historic move

Published

on

By

VW Chattanooga plant, where ID.4 is made, votes to unionize in historic move

VW’s Chattanooga Assembly Plant has voted to join UAW, in a historic move on the back of several recent union wins in the US.

The UAW have had quite a year, launching an unprecedented strike against all three major US automakers at the same time last September. The tactic worked, and six weeks later the UAW had made a deal with all three automakers, winning big pay increases and other assurances from each of them.

The win didn’t just help UAW workers, though, as soon after the strikes closed, several other companies announced big pay increases. Workers at VW, Hyundai, Toyota, Honda and Tesla all earned pay increases of about 10% or more as companies recognized the need to compete for skilled workers with better packages.

UAW President Shawn Fain called this “the UAW bump,” and said UAW stands for “U Are Welcome,” highlighting to non-union workers that strong unions help workers across the economy, not just at their own respective shops.

After these wins, the UAW announced their intention to unionize all other US automakers at the same time – an idea which President Biden lent his support to. UAW encouraged employees from other plants to signal their intent to join up by signing a union card through the website uaw.org/join/.

Fain even said that when the newly-negotiated contracts with the “Big Three” come up for renegotiation (on May 1, 2028 – International Workers’ Day), that this time the negotiations “won’t just be with a Big Three, but with a Big Five or Big Six” – meaning that the UAW plan to have unionized other automakers by that timeframe.

And today, they’ve got their first big win.

Today’s VW vote was the first test of UAW’s strategy, and while votes are still being counted, 2,300 workers have voted yes out of around 4,300 eligible workers, meaning that even if all remaining votes are “no” votes, the measure would still pass with a majority.

Chattanooga’s vote makes history in several ways. It’s the first time in over 50 years that an automaker has newly unionized in the US, the first unionized auto plant in the US South, and the first time a plant owned by a foreign automaker has unionized in the US.

Prior to the vote, Chattanooga was actually VW’s only non-union plant worldwide. In fact, in VW’s home country of Germany, every company over a certain size must have worker representation, generally in the form of union representatives, on the company board.

The plant had conducted other union votes in the past, in both 2014 and 2019, but both failed by slim margins. But the plant has more than doubled in employment since 2019, along with more union momentum now than there was then.

Past votes lost at least partially due to opposition from republican state government officials who oppose worker representation. Today’s vote was opposed by Tennessee’s republican governor, Bill Lee, and republican governors from other nearby states.

Past votes were also affected by corruption scandals that left UAW’s former appointed presidents in prison. Current UAW President Fain is the first elected UAW president, as opposed to previous presidents that had all been appointed.

VW’s Chattanooga plant currently produces the VW ID.4 and the VW Atlas. The ID.4 was brought to Chattanooga in order to gain access to the US EV tax credit, and VW has considered bringing production of other EVs to the plant.

This was the first success of UAW’s new strategy, but it may not be the last. There is already another vote scheduled for next month at Mercedes’ plant in Alabama (a state where republican lawmakers recently passed a law to try to limit worker representation). That vote will occur from May 13-17, and if successful, would mean nearly 10,000 unionized autoworkers in the South over the course of just a few weeks.

Electrek’s Take

Unions are having a bit of a moment in the US, in recent years reaching their highest popularity ever since surveys started asking about them.

Much of union popularity has been driven by COVID-19-related disruptions across the economy, with workers becoming unsatisfied due to mistreatment (labeling everyone “essential,” companies ending work-from-home) and with the labor market getting tighter with over 1 million Americans dead from the virus and another 2-4 million out of work due to long COVID.

Unions have seized on this dissatisfaction to build momentum in the labor movement, with successful strikes across many industries and organizers starting to organize workforces that had previously been non-union.

However, union membership has been down over several decades in the US. As a result, pay hasn’t kept pace with worker productivity, and income distribution has become more unequal over time. It’s really not hard to see this influence when you plot these trends against each other.

It’s quite clear that lower union membership has resulted in lower inflation-adjusted compensation for workers, even as productivity has skyrocketed. As workers have produced more and more value for their companies, those earnings have gone more and more to their bosses rather than to the workers who produce that value. It all began in the ’80s, around the time of Reagan – a timeline that should be familiar to those who study social ills in America.

All of this isn’t just true in the US but also internationally. If you look at other countries with high levels of labor organization, they tend to have more fair wealth distribution across the economy and more ability for workers to get their fair share.

We’re seeing this in Sweden right now, as Tesla workers are still striking for better conditions. Since Sweden has 90% collective bargaining coverage, it tends to have a happy and well-paid workforce, and it seems clear that these two things are correlated. That strike is still continuing, but Tesla CEO Elon Musk – who just fired 14,000 people while holding the company hostage and begging for a $55 billion payday for himself – is seemingly uninterested in negotiating.

These are all reasons why, as I’ve mentioned in many of these UAW-related articles, I’m pro-union. And I think everyone should be – it only makes sense that people should have their interests collectively represented and that people should be able to join together to support each other and exercise their power collectively instead of individually.

This is precisely what companies do with industry organizations, lobby organizations, chambers of commerce, and so on. And it’s what people do when sorting themselves into local, state, or national governments. So naturally, workers should do the same. It’s just fair.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending