.
.
.
Emitting virtually zero direct emissions and producing enough energy to power a large city with a small plant, this clean energy source was thought to be revolutionary and was quickly implemented globally to replace older “dirty” forms of power. Is this wind? Solar? Fuel cells? Electric cars? No, this was hydroelectric power that was hailed as the energy savior almost a century ago as large plants were built around the world. Funny thing is that less than 1/2 a century later hydro-electric plants were seen as environmentally hostile – disturbing entire eco-systems, impairing critical fish hatcheries and destroying virgin landscapes according to many environmental groups. Now, flash forward to the present day where green is “in.” We have anticipated and fixed all environmental problems with current technology – right? Wrong?
Electric cars are freely marketed as environmentally friendly and having zero emissions. Not sure how the car companies are getting away with this lie, but it is certainly not true. Since environmentalists have shut down any further American development of hydro-electric or nuclear power plant development, any new demand for power has to be currently met by expanded use of traditional fuel sources such as coal or oil (“green” sources of power such as wind and solar produce a minuscule percentage [less than .1%] of American energy http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/Solar-Power-Potential.aspx ). When you plug your electric car into the socket, the power fairies do not sprinkle energy dust, your car pulls power from the grid. This power is created with far more proportional emissions that the equivalent traditional gas powered car. By buying an electric car, you haven’t “made the world a better place,” you have simply changed the place where the pollution is created. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/policy/voytishlong.html
Solar power does have promise but it also comes with environmental costs that are currently high. The typical solar field developer is currently seeking to develop solar “ranches” in 1,000 acre “patches.” Today, a 1,000 acre solar ranch is filled with 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 solar cells. While environmentalists seem to be almost universally supportive of the development of this technology, there are several places where the environmental fabric has been stretched quite thin. First, by their nature, solar fields are ideally developed away from other forms of development. This means that the ideal solar ranch is constructed in a place where there has never been construction in the past. The solar plants take virgin soil and smother it with millions of solar cells wall to wall. Second, because there ranches are being developed on virgin soil, they are often proposed in areas teeming with endangered and protected species. I have watched with some amusement as almost all of the traditional environmental groups have chosen not to challenge solar projects even when they threaten the extinction of an endangered species. Thirdly, just like hydro-electric plants that were originally hailed as “environmentally friendly” I wonder how long it will be before unbroken miles of solar panels will be viewed as “eyesores.” Finally, the typical solar cell has a 10-25 year useful life. This means that millions and millions of solar panels (typically 6 feet by six feet) must be periodically deposited in landfills. Given that many of these solar panels contain toxic or hazardous materials, that is a future serious environmental challenge currently ignored.
Wind power is also hailed as “environmentally friendly,” yet poses many unresolved environmental challenges. Even more than solar power, wind farms require isolation from existing development. Wind farm developers have sophisticated models that are amazingly accurate at predicting the power generating capacity of any land that could be converted to wind power generation. Unfortunately, these models breakdown if there is any incursion of development nearby. (An interesting side issue is the concept of “wind theft” that comes up when one wind farm start to build up wind from another wind farm and there is a claim of “wind theft.”) Just like solar field development, wind farm development requires the development of virgin land, impacts on endangered and protected species and I believe that environmentalists will be calling the rolling fields of wind turbines “eyesores” within a generation.
I am not against the continued development of clean energy from any source. I do think that clever advertising has created an imaginary divide between “green” and “dirty” technologies that is more based on rhetoric than it is on reality. Because of the successful campaign of rhetoric launched by the “green” energy forces (hello Mr. Gore), we are now ignoring environmental laws protecting endangered species, relating to the disposal of hazardous wastes and visual blight while providing “green” companies like Solydnra with billions and billions of dollars of dollars n tax incentives for technologies that really aren’t that green.
You know, Geoff (note the absence of an apostrophe on this occasion), I welcome this sort of challenge from conservatives and skeptics about alternative energy. You might have included a disclaimer re your interests, a less conclusive title, and have laid off of the attacks on Solyndra — they went bankrupt, like OC in the mid-90s, with at least the excuse that their market collapsed! — but overall this is sticks to the factual assertions.
I’d be happy to post a link to Daily Kos, where lots of environmentalists might want to weigh in on it, if you’d like, but I won’t do so if you’d prefer to avoid le deluge. Your pick.
Please link away. I have no direct interest in the development of any of these technologies and have been on all sides of this battle (defending and attacking solar and wind field projects and providing advice to the government about their approval) and I stand by the title. As to Solyndra, why would I not mention the huge government tax incentives? Those are a key part of the story.
***BULLSHIT ALERT***
“I have watched with some amusement as almost all of the traditional environmental groups have chosen not to challenge solar projects even when they threaten the extinction of an endangered species.”
This took ALL of 3 seconds to find;
Tessera Solar plans to plant 34,000 solar dishes — each one 40 feet high and 38 feet wide — on 8,230 acres of the Mojave Desert in Southern California.
Although the lengthy licensing process for the Calico solar farm remains in the early stages, several environmental groups are already raising red flags about the massive project’s impact on such protected wildlife as the desert tortoise, the Mojave fringe-toed lizard and Nelson’s bighorn sheep.
Calico is one of dozens of industrial-scale solar farms planned for the Southwest that have divided environmentalists over the need to promote renewable energy while protecting fragile desert ecosystems.
But the sheer size of the Calico project, as well as its location next to federal conservation areas, is drawing scrutiny from grassroots green activists and national organizations like the Defenders of Wildlife.
How many solar or wind projects have you personally worked on Anonster? By the way, your story is laughable and does not at all refute my point. I KNOW there are environmental concerns that could be raised and when some of the larger of these projects come up there is a flurry of “whispers,” but no legal challenges follow. Concerns are usually raised about environmental consequences but all of the biggies (Sierra Club, Audubon, etc.) have all refused to sue so far because of the threat of funding loss from donors that are blindly supportive of the technologies because they have been labeled “green.” The Center for Biological Diversity is the only group of any size that I am aware of that has even filed a nominal challenge to “green” projects.
Well now you’re defining “challenge” to specifically mean a legal suit. You don’t necessarily have to file suit to oppose or “challenge” a solar project.
You do if you really want to stop it. I actually didn’t define challenge as limited to filing suit – the normal groups that file written protests to many, many projects are not only not suing, they are often not filing any written or oral opposition to the projects at the public hearings.
Geoff,
“How many solar or wind projects have you personally worked on Anonster?”
None, but if this POORLY RESEARCHED ARTICLE is an example of your work product I wouldn’t be casting aspersions.
From the NYT’s;
Solar Energy Faces Tests On Greenness
Isaac Brekken for The New York Times
Biologists from BrightSource Energy scan vegetation for desert tortoises in the Mojave Desert. Many of the areas planned for solar development in California are in fragile landscapes.
By TODD WOODY
SAN FRANCISCO — Just weeks after regulators approved the last of nine multibillion-dollar solar thermal power plants to be built in the Southern California desert, a storm of lawsuits and the resurgence of an older solar technology are clouding the future of the nascent industry.
The litigation, which seeks to block construction of five of the solar thermal projects, underscores the growing risks of building large-scale renewable energy plants in environmentally delicate areas….
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/business/energy-environment/24solar.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
From having been in conversations on solar power in the SoCal deserts, I can testify that (1) these Endangered Species Act issues do get discussed and (2) there is a tendency to put the act first but no clear consensus. (I tend to be in the minority on this one.)
I’d hope that we could agree that improving transmission grids — with public spending! — working on improved battery and other storage technologies, and locating power sources closer to users can theoretically eliminate some of the conflict, though.
Geoff acts like “enviromentalists” set enviromental policy in this country, not true, otherwise instead of huge solar fields we’d have solar panels on every house (a la Germany), which would be far more efficient but not nearly as profitible for big energy corporations.
He slams enviromentalists for being silent when it comes to endangered species, but what he fails to mention is that the Endangered Species Act requires MITIGATION LAND, which is land set aside for every acre of land developed, sometimes as high as 3 to 1.
You simply do not know what you are talking about Anonster. The Endangered Species Act makes it a crime to “take” a species (meaning, among other things, to kill the species). Fish and Wildlife (the federal agency with regulatory authority) has agreed to mitigation land, but they cannot require mitigation land under the act, that would be a taking requiring the payment of just compensation under the constitution. Not sure I understand the relevance of that one anyway.
I am not claiming to be an expert and maybe I’m interpreting this wrong, but this sounds like mitigation land is required;
Land Mitigation Program
Northern California is experiencing sharp increases in urban growth and impacts to sensitive natural resources are occurring at an accelerating rate. Development related projects and activities that impact legally protected natural resources (e.g., Waters of the United States, and habitat supporting and/or species listed under the Endangered Species Act), require mitigation under one or more local, state or federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act, and Federal Endangered Species Act.
http://www.landconservation.org/ncrltprograms.php
The reason I think the issue of mitigation land is relevant, is that it’s a trade-off. Enviromentalists might not want a 1,000 acre solar farm on one site, but if they’re offered 3,000 acres at another location as an offset it might make the deal worthwhile.
Also found this case;
Mitigation condition on development approval: Mead v. City of Cotati, 389 Fed. Appx. 637 (9th Cir. 2010), petition for cert. filed, 79 U.S.L.W. 3403 (December 21, 2010) (No. 10-828)
Plaintiff, owner of 1.6 acres of vacant land in the city, applied for approval to build four duplexes on 0.9 acres. The city approved, subject to compliance with the city’s affordable housing plan and, pertinent here, mitigation of the proposed development’s impact on the California Tiger Salamander, an endangered species. Plaintiff’s consultant concluded that under interim mitigation guidelines developed by the FWS and the state under the ESA, plaintiff would be required to devote one acre of land to habitat conservation for each acre of a nearby salamander breeding site that was adversely affected by the development. Plaintiff claims the imposition of the twoconditions effects a taking. (Facts taken from district court decision: 2008 WL 4963048 (N.D. Cal.).)
Held, mitigation claim not ripe. The landowner’s taking claim based on the required mitigation of his development’s impact on the salamander is unripe. The claim fails to satisfy the ripeness requirement that a final decision be obtained from the government body as to the permitted uses of the property, since the landowner did not avail himself of the opportunity to submit to FWS a survey showing the presence or absence of salamanders on his land. Nor has he argued that the cost of performing a proper survey would constitute a taking. For this reason, he has not received a final FWS determination as to whether the salamander mitigation requirements apply to his land.
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL31796.pdf
Yes, and tigers run free in Bangladesh. Both entirely irrelevant. Just showing your ignorance.
Pretty sloppy for a lawyer. I guess you’ve never heard of an Incidental Take Permit or a Habitat Conservation Plan?
Yes, if I was briefing the matter here for the court, it would be sloppy. This is a blog, people need the basics, you are from inside the solar industry and just trying to throw stones. I am more than happy to provide an entire primer on the implementation of the Endangered Species Act since I have personally handled several dozen ESA cases going as far back as 1986.
I would love a primer on ESA.
My point was that your comment implies that RE projects are out there slaying TES right and left while flaunting ESA and that’s simply not the case.
Nice call on the insider bit, though. I was hoping you were going to challenge me like you did Anonster 😉
Not my intention if my post implied that solar/wind projects are slaying Endangered Species – that is largely or entirely untrue. My point was more that many of these projects are getting a pass from environmental groups not because of the actual difference in environmental impacts, but because donors for environmental groups blindly think that if its green it has no impacts or those impacts should be ignored “for the greater good.” The difference in opposition based on species impact actually comes up more in the CEQA context than in the ESA context because if you had actual ESA violations F&W would be all over it regardless of the political climate.
I’ll tackle the electric car argument since I don’t know as much about wind or solar (though as a Coloradoan, I can say that wind power has been a boon for ranchers here)
The promise of the electric car is in centralizing the emissions. Millions of non-point sources are impossible to control, but power plants offer viable targets for capturing emissions that we wouldn’t be able to filter out of a tailpipe. If we can increase power production from non-CO2-emitting sources, so much the better. A potential future benefit lies in the ability to use the storage capacity of a plugged-in electric car fleet to smooth the spikes in power demand.
BTW, “environmentalists” are not monolithically opposed to nuclear power. Those that recognize nuclear as a viable option to curb CO2 emissions simply oppose the continued reliance on poorly regulated and antiquated technology– if development on pebble bed reactors and other technologies that minimize radioactive waste byproducts actually pans out, you’ll see environmentalists cheering.
Nice comment Tom and welcome to the Juice – my point was not that environmentalists are monolithic, bad or anything else. I think that it is fair to say that the present political environment makes development of a new nuclear plant to be next to impossible in no small part because of the activism of the environmental movement. I don’t disagree with the centralizing emissions argument, but that is a far cry from the advertised “zero emissions” promises. The link I attached in the original story points out that the centralized emissions argument creates a small benefit in some areas and is a big negative in others. Not horrible, but certainly NOT green.
And I’d say that the present environment makes development of nuclear plants impossible because the nuclear industry demands liability caps, a la the old Price-Anderson Act, that in other circumstances would lead you to scream bloody murder, Geoff. You think we lost too much money on Solyndra? How do you think Japan is doing with Fukushima?
I think Japan is bleeding money on Fukushima.
And that money Japan is bleeding, is it all coming from plant owner TEPCO rather than taxpayers (not to mention tort victims)?
I think you’ll find that environmentalists tend to be quite appalled at corporate greenwashing, and that’s what the advertising tends to be. When a hybrid or plug-in electric comes out, we treat the car companies like toddlers that finally managed to go in the potty. That said, “green” as a term has become almost meaningless but the sense that the environmental movement uses is one of direction rather than an absolute state. “Green” technology is invariably pointed to as heading in the right direction and it’s been nearly a century since a working activist environmentalist has pointed toward a panacea green solution… pretty much since those hydroelectric dams.
So, in a way you’re right. Green isn’t green… but it’s better than what we had and leaves room for development where the old fossil fuel relient technology has reached the point of diminishing returns on development.
Comments have started coming in on Daily Kos. I’ll give each one its own separate thread.
[This is from “celtic pugilist”]
[This from st croix cheesehead (I’ve redacted a little)]
[This from sychotic1 — an unfortunate name with an interesting backstory]
[This from “Inventor”]
(This commenter has a funny tag line, by the way:
“Who is John Galt?” A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.”)
[This from “xopher”]
[This from Geek of All Trades]
As I understand it, stationary power plants are far more efficient then internal combustion engines (They can install big heavy things that don’t make sense on moving vehicles). As such, when you charge up, you are actually burning less fuel then if you fill your car. Otherwise, the price of charging/power would be higher.
[A reply by st croix cheesehead]:
Efficiency – Those pesky laws of thermodynamics. But conservatives don’t believe those either. 😉
That should have been in a block quote, of course.
Anyway, because many of you have probably never been there, chant along with me:
[This from “Leo in NJ”]
Incorrect or dubious statements:
1/ “Ideally … constructed in a place where there has never been construction in the past.”
Ideal is where there _was_ construction but there is nothing there any longer. Existing infrastructure (e.g. roads, transmission lines) is a bonus.
2/ “solar plants take virgin soil”
Broad brush. Google “solar brownfield”
3/ “the typical solar cell has a 10-25 year useful life”
The typical solar cell is _guaranteed_ for 25 years.
4/ “must be periodically deposited in landfills … a future serious environmental challenge currently ignored”
5/ “wind … requires the development of virgin land”
just a few examples
http://www.farmcpatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Wind-Machine-on-Farm.jpg
http://www.global-investment-fund.com/images/Climate_Wind_turbines.jpg
http://www.nrel.gov/data/pix/Jpegs/06316.jpg
http://northdakota365.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/for-post-card-combine-and-wind-turbine-wtrmrk.jpg
and, sort of undermining your entire premise:
http://www.msrlegal.com/mediafiles/permitting-poses-challenges-to-renewable-energy-projects.pdf
I have read your materials and frankly they are not on point and do not support your position. If First Solar has developed a recycling program, it is within the past few months and certainly not a part of their development applications as late as nine months ago. I think that if you read the post carefully I do not describe the problems as unsolveable, just unsolved.
First Solar began publicizing their recycling at some point in 2010. Earliest reference I found was June 2010. Thus, greater than nine months ago.
I was objecting to your absolutist framing:
ideal
requires
virgin
ignored
Frankly, they don’t support your position because it shows your bias against these technologies. Or, more likely, you have nothing against the technologies themselves, just who you have pre-conceived as the supporters of these technologies.
Don’t want to belabor this point too much, but having taken a microscope to a very large First Solar project in December that absolutely did not have the recycling program, I am dissappointed to find out that it existed at a time the company claimed in writing that such a program was infeasible.
I have no bias against the technologies and think that they are developing quickly into feasible alternatives. My concern is with the speed of the approvals and public funding process which is blindly ignoring known risks just because the industry has done a good job with the rhetoric.
ultimately, however, you aren’t wrong with the premise that RE projects have environmental challenges yet to overcome.