June 9th 2009
Desert Solar Power Plants – Don’t Get Your Hopes Up
I
f you’re not interested in buying that bridge in Brooklyn, perhaps I could interest you in some stark, middle-of-nowhere desert land that’s ideal for the energy of tomorrow – solar! Yes, friends, imagine this dreary wasteland glimmering with solar panels as far as the eye can see! And what else glitters, friends? Gold! Yes, there’s gold to be made buying up desert land for the inevitable solar revolution! Step right up!
Er, before you whip out that checkbook, allow me to introduce you to Mr. Greenie, who loves alternative energy – unless, of course, someone proposes to actually build an alternative energy facility anywhere. As the amazingly appropriately named Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club in Phoenix told the Phoenix Business Journal:
We are very supportive of a mix of renewable generation. But we’re not in favor of paving the desert with mirrors.
Here’s a story about environmentalists concerned about a desert solar plant’s impact on pupfish. It’s all pretty frustrating, says the governor of CahLEEforNEEa in Capitalism Magazine:
As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger put it, “But, I mean, if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it.” The answer, Governor, is nowhere, according to many environmentalists. A group called the Alliance for Responsible Energy Policy, discussing the plans for arrays in the desert, argues that this portends the “permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands . . . [this is] wilderness killing.” Despite lip-service to human needs, protecting “pristine nature” is their goal, and “pristine nature” means nature undefiled by any human presence—even a footprint in the desert.
The NY Times succeeded in actually finding some desert residents who don’t like the idea of productive use of their woebegone climes:
But it is also home to the Mojave ground squirrel, the desert tortoise and the burrowing owl, and to human residents who describe themselves as desert survivors and who are unhappy about the proliferation of solar projects planned for their home turf.
“We’re tired of everyone looking at the desert like a wasteland,” said Donna Charpied, who lives with her husband, Larry, in Desert Center, Calif., where they have been farming jojoba, a native shrub cultivated for its oil, for 27 years. She is also the policy advocate for the Desert Communities Protection Campaign of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.
Wait a minute! Some desert rat is also an environmental justice radical who just happens to have a hotline to the NYT? What are the chances?! You got to hand it to those NYT reporters – if there’s a radical leftist to quote, they’ find ‘em, even in the remotest of places. Don’t be deceived by that highfalutin’ “Desert Center” name – the hardscrabble place has a population of 125.
Even if you succeed in overcoming environmentalist opposition and get your incredibly difficult permits from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which will be watching out for every bush and bunny, you’ll still have to figure out how to get your power to anywhere, since Greenies are fighting the new power line corridors that would bring electricity to metropolitan areas from the desert.
But let’s say you get past that hurdle. Now, let me introduce you to the rather formidable Diane Feinstein.
In a move that could pit usual allies — environmentalists and the solar and wind industries — against each other, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is preparing legislation that would permanently put hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land off limits to energy projects. The territory would be designated California’s newest national monument. …
“It’s frustrating. We really do have competing national priorities here,” said Paul Whitworth, whose San Diego-based LightSource Renewables hopes to put in a solar project on about 6,000 acres near Amboy. “We spent a lot of time researching the desert, and consulting with the BLM to make sure we didn’t apply on top of an area of critical environmental concern, or area with other issues. . . . Now, there’s uncertainty on whether these projects will go ahead.” [LA Times]
My advice? Buy oil.
Posted in Energy Policy, Environmentalism | 4 Comments » | |
Trackbacks/Pings
Leave a Reply
[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Comments
June 10th, 2009 at 5:57 am
Large solar farms in the desert are a really bad idea from both an environmental and practical viewpoint. They require a huge amount of additional infrastructure to collect, distribute and maintain this form of alternative energy. Large wind turbine farms have similar problems.
In my view, both wind and solar are better suited for use where the energy will be used — at the home or commercial building. They don’t need the massive new infrastructure required for large farms (or arrays) built far from population centers. Much better to stick with coal, oil or natural gas. That is true from an environmental, cost, practical and energy-efficient point of view.
Wave energy is another matter. Although environmentalists are lining up against deploying test arrays off the coasts of Sonoma, Mendocino and Humboldt Counties, they should reconsider. This is the one form of alternative energy (other than nooklar) that can replace fossil fuels for electricity generation and give the US a big step towards energy independence.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I tend to agree with you about wind and solar. The Obama admin, however, will have great difficulty reaching its goals for alternative energy without massive arrays, since the alternative – units at the point of use – demand property owners to invest in iffy energy sources, and they won’t.
I agree wholeheartedly on wave energy, something I’ve endorsed since first reading about it in the mid-70s. Also of note, here’s a recent tweet from my @LPAWater page on Twitter:
LPAWater Water out of thin air – exciting new water vapor capture technology runs on renewable power. Hmm … water rights? http://cli.gs/SJTPnp
June 10th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Oh, for the love. Are these people ever going to realize that human life and well-being should take precedent over random desert creatures? It’s like a friend’s friend who taught at an exclusive school in Beverly Hills and could not convince the rich Hollywood offspring that a human life – even a human who cured cancer – was of greater value than a dolphin’s.I understand that we have to be wise stewards, but nothing – NOTHING – in life is without its tradeoffs. I wish these NIMBY warmies would stop seeing life as starkly black and white, all or nothing. I second the Governator – if not in the Mojave, where would you build solar? I don’t necessarily endorse solar – I just get so sick of people being at the bottom of activists’ priority lists.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Christa Jeanne,
Why would you want to destroy a unique desert habitat when the benefits are so dubious? Just because the Sierra Club opposes it?
That’s utterly foolish. The choice you present — human life or random desert creatures — is a false dilemma. You don’t have to choose between one or the other. We can have alternative forms of energy without harming the environment or destroying habitat, desert or otherwise, and it isn’t that difficult to do.
As for seeing things in black and white, that applies more to you than it does those that want to consider the costs (including environmental costs) and benefits of a project before diving in with both feet.