Subscription Center
Mar 25, 2009 05:53 PM | 17
Do the potential benefits of plants that use renewable sources such as wind and solar to generate energy outweigh the environmental damage that could be caused to make way for them? Californians are grappling with that very question as the state moves ahead with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to have utility companies generate one-third of the state's energy from renewable sources by 2020; today renewables account for 12 percent of their output.
The facilities and infrastructure needed to meet the governor's goals, however, require the state to turn over acres of previously undeveloped land (to install fields of solar panels, for example), something residents near the Carrisa Plains region (about 170 miles northwest of Los Angeles) fear may destroy the area's natural beauty, not to mention habitats of endangered animals such as the San Joaquin kit fox, Time reports.
Three companies—OptiSolar, Inc., SunPower Corporation, and Carrizo Energy, LLC—are hoping to build solar plants on 16 square miles (41 square kilometers) in eastern San Luis Obispo County, according to Time. The benefits could be substantial—OptiSolar claims on its Web site that its proposed 550-megawatt photovoltaic Topaz Solar Farm alone could power about 190,000 homes.
The Obama administration is encouraging California's move toward green energy. Part of the state's share of the federal economic stimulus package ($50 billion in spending and about $35 billion in tax relief) will help pay for 30 percent of solar projects that begin by the end of 2010, according to Time.
California's effort reflects the fed's own enthusiasm for green energy—the economic stimulus package is loaded with $59 billion in energy and in tax incentives designed to promote clean energy. In fact, President Obama announced during a White House press conference this week that his administration plans to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop clean, efficient energy. "As we speak, my Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is visiting Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, where recovery funds will speed construction of a laboratory that will help develop materials for new solar cells and other clean energy technologies," he said.
But some Californians see a darker side to building the solar power plants on previously pristine land, where Joshua trees grow although not many people live. Most prominent among them is Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is preparing legislation that would permanently protect hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land around the Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. While only a small portion of the desert would be allocated to solar power farms (and the paperwork to build the facilities has not been approved) for the Carrisa Plains project, environmentalists are concerned that this would be just the beginning.
Feinstein supports development of renewable energy sources, but she opposes using these lands, which are not only tourist attractions (and as such bring in money to the state) but also are home to endangered wildlife, cactus gardens and other plant life. Nineteen of the 130 applications for solar and wind energy development in the California desert area currently being reviewed by the Bureau of Land Management request permission to build renewable energy plants in areas that Feinstein is attempting to preserve, the Los Angeles Times reports.
The senator noted her concerns in a March 3 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has said that development of renewable energy sources is one of his top priorities. The Times reports that Salazar told Feinstein that the projects would "carefully considered" before any decisions were made and that "every effort will be made to avoid the most environmentally sensitive and valuable areas."
With reporting by Rachel Olfson
Image of Joshua tree © Gooniesgrl4evr
Tags:
wind,
solar,
Mojave,
renewable energy
More News Blog:
Next: The next not-so-big thing: Nanogenerators
Previous: Tesla Motors gets ready to unveil the Model S
See what we're tweeting about
DNLee5 Attn @MinorityPostdoc were you familiar with @NCOREconference? Need to get you to present next year, #highered #Diversity #postdoc
erbrod Some movement on making Penn Station a, well, station? Maybe. http://t.co/IX06Lnwjei
BoraZ RT @roseveleth: A brief history of robot birds - http://t.co/UVnJMZDsgF
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
17 Comments
Add CommentAll energy generation has costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, you can't make environmentalist happy ever. Here Califormia is trying to lead the way for our nation to help curb Climate Change and still they're finding things to complain about. There is no winning with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not a bad thing to look at all the costs. IMO and I think most other "environmentalists," the benefits outweigh the costs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything we do has consequences. Every opinion for and against an issue deserves a fair airing in the media. Not all people are stupid and/or self serving.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalifornia may be leading the way in your opinion but are they doing anything doing anything to mitigate the primary cause of all our problems? I am referring to human population growth and the reduced biodiversity that results.
I sincerely hope people with attitudes similar to those displayed by you, at the current moment in time, do not attain positions of power in any organisation.
According to the comments provided by one of the nation's leading ecologists K. Shawn Smallwood PhD concludes that the impacts from the full build out as is currently planned under the California 33% Renewable Portfolio Standand implementation plan as follows; "After revising my renewable resource gap projection, and assuming it will be filled half by wind power and half by solar PV, the habitat areas potentially at risk from the 33% RPS include 2,351 square miles due to wind power generation and 340 square miles due to solar, and these massive environmental costs are so far missing from the Implementation Analysis."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a shame that the ratio of renewable energy is negligible, below 2 percent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess the notion of conservation need to adjust to the changed time.
Why don't we harvest the energy where the people have already developed the land, and use the space taken up by buildings as a place to also produce energy? Wouldn't the utilization the surface area always exposed to the sun's rays be the most efficient and less destructive to the environment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen My anciesters came to California 150 years ago they set out to make the area safe and friendly to human habitation and created a garden state. 50 years ago millions of carpetbagers like Feinstine and Pelosi started moved into the state to enjoy it's wonders and benefits and then they want to recreate a beautiful wilderness that never existed. I'm ashamed of all of these shortsighted people that call themselves Californians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not know why the first thing on peoples mind when you are going to build something new is, "First, you have to destroy the environment!" California does not have to destroy or hamper any environment. What's wrong with placing those solar panels on top of all those large business buildings they have in the southern part of the state where it is sunny 364 days out of the year? Doing that may produce enough power for the whole west coast. If people spent less time using their brain to whine and more time in creative thinking, our environment may not be as polluted or destroyed today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a thought, should the rest of the country look to California as an example on how to run itself? Misguided efforts such as this will only further their own financial demise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be happy to have solar panels on the south facing roof of my house in Ventura, where the sun shines a little every day and a lot most days. Unfortunately, I can't rcover the costs of the installation since I use very little power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we had some reabtes or low cost loans, many of us would be able to do that and might go a long way toward achieving the solar energy goals.
Larry Greenemeier,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease revise your statements in regards to the Solar Farm Developers, by doing some research. You may find it very disturbing; some of them have already exited and others are following; anticipate near-zero solar farms.
Another Solar Farm Developer says: “We had it. Now we are an ex parte. For over a decade, no one did anything of value to us, not even one red penny. Therefore, we are done and gone for good.
Constitutional Option 1. Take all of or private land that was set aside for solar farms and pay us according to the Doctrine of Takings of Private Property For Just Compensation. Alternative Tax Option 2. If our land is gone, we will write-off millions of dollars.
Then, commencing now, we will outsource all that contemplated in another country, whereas jobs in the US shall be created by all of those that stood against us. “Keep your desert for good and look elsewhere to create jobs and harvest tax revenue”.
Why couldn't we just put the solar panels on the tops of buildings? I realize I don't know alot about solar panels but it seems to me we have many, many unused acres of rooftop and installing them there would help keeping them out of endangered animals needed land.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe State of California is committed to obtaining 33% of its electricity from renewable sources (solar and wind) by 2020. The state has calculated that even if all of the structures in the state were outfitted with solar panels this goal could not be achieved. Electricity from rooftop solar is three times as expensive as utility scale solar and trying to do it on the rooftops would cost more than $100 Billion dollars more than in the desert. We should look for desert locations that cause the least damage and do what we can to lower rooftop solar costs. Keep in mind the SunPower project alone (referenced above) will be the equivalent to all of the solar installed on rooftops under the aggressive CA programs to date. These projects need to be built to begin the march to retiring coal generation and the greenhouse gases coal fired generation produces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that rooftop solqr is no where near enough panels to meet the state goals. But I also recognize that those rooftops just sit there year after yeard in the sun. If we could at least use them to help offset soem ofthe goals, our land based solar system would not eat land quite as fast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out www.protectourlands.com to see how to use solar without destroying our public lands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDiFi wants Congress to create a yet another National Monument, not because some feature of historiy or nature would be preserved, but because she wants to use the easily obtained land classification to block renewable energy projects. Our national parks and monuments are still "special places". Creating a National Monument for her purposes in inapprpriate. Unfortunately Diane's actions remind us that Californians have elected two goofy Senators. Rememberr...NIBY!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMammothmtnmitch