Should we "Just Say No!" to renewable energy zones?
Mesila Valley Desert by Brian Stansberry Creative Commons
A few days ago, Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar established a task force to identify zones on public lands where the department can help begin the development of mega-sized renewable resource projects. At first blush this sounds like a great idea, but the plan is meeting with resistance from at least one blogger. RecycleBills blog has a post that challenges us to "Just Say No" to the zones and, while he may be a bit hyperbolic, he does make some valid points. For example, these projects not only impact the acreage upon which they are built but, by creating more roads and infrastructure to move the generated electricity, they can also open a vast area to human-induced damage.
Recycle Bill isn't all about criticism, though, as he also offers up some good alternatives to intruding on wilderness areas. He points out that that there already exists huge amounts of public land that could be used for solar installations. In addition to the rooftops of governmentowned buildings and parking lots, we have thousands of miles of Interstate and Federal highways that could benefit from having a solar panel canopy and also provide an intelligent place to lay an inter-city high-voltage direct current (HVDC) network. Recycle Bill lists a lot of other places we could install distributed solar energy that are close to where the energy would be used, but will the task force listen to the voice of a lone blogger crying out about the wilderness? We don't know but we will listen to your cries in the comments after the break.
[Source: RecycleBills]
Recycle Bill isn't all about criticism, though, as he also offers up some good alternatives to intruding on wilderness areas. He points out that that there already exists huge amounts of public land that could be used for solar installations. In addition to the rooftops of governmentowned buildings and parking lots, we have thousands of miles of Interstate and Federal highways that could benefit from having a solar panel canopy and also provide an intelligent place to lay an inter-city high-voltage direct current (HVDC) network. Recycle Bill lists a lot of other places we could install distributed solar energy that are close to where the energy would be used, but will the task force listen to the voice of a lone blogger crying out about the wilderness? We don't know but we will listen to your cries in the comments after the break.
[Source: RecycleBills]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
John Lee 4:58PM (3/14/2009)
I think that there is a bit of hyperbole here.
There is oodles and oodles of BLM land that can take renewable energy before any wilderness is effected, and I have yet to be shown where any proposals would place any renewable energy on designated wilderness.
We should do a lot of what Recycle Bill advocates. But we also need more large projects as advocated by Salazar. I don't think that any proposals for RE projects conflict with residential/industrial pv. If RE is to work it must be geographically diverse to increase reliability and that means placing RE on federal lands that currently have no development.
Reply
scammer-killer 5:00PM (3/14/2009)
I live in the south and we're outdoor people but even as much as I'm a conservationist there is TONS of land that is good for nothing but having something sit on it. Using this land for it's only real purpose makes more sense to me than cutting down trees or anything.
I agree with the solar rooftops and such as that would be a good place to start but we need to think large scale for the country and not just a small patch of desert with a power grid sitting on it.
Reply
win39 6:55PM (3/14/2009)
Germany's switch to solar cells has involved a lot of farmers who are finding that electricity generation is more profitable than some crops. Maybe instead of a corn subsidy credits could be offered produce electricity instead of ethanol.
Reply
Max 11:21PM (3/14/2009)
Complete nonsense, it's a lot more efficient and cheaper to build 1 massive solar power plant than 100 smaller ones atop buildings.
Not that building mounted solar arrays are bad, but we need to get the most out of our money. We need to go Solar asap
Reply
RecycleBill 7:54AM (3/15/2009)
John Lee wrote: "There is oodles and oodles of BLM land that can take renewable energy before any wilderness is effected, and I have yet to be shown where any proposals would place any renewable energy on designated wilderness."
I never mentioned Designated Wilderness in my origional post. For the vast majority of Americans BLM lands are as close to wilderness as we will ever see-- why destroy it when we don't have to?
scammer-killer wrote: "I live in the south and we're outdoor people but even as much as I'm a conservationist there is TONS of land that is good for nothing but having something sit on it. Using this land for it's only real purpose makes more sense to me than cutting down trees or anything."
I'm not exactly sure of what to make of your comment. I also live in the Southland and as a lifelong Southerner born and bred and someone who has traveled every mile of Interstate Highway there is and walked on the soil of every state in the lower 48 I have never seen a "good for nothing" piece of land. Please explain.
win39 wrote: "Germany's switch to solar cells has involved a lot of farmers who are finding that electricity generation is more profitable than some crops. Maybe instead of a corn subsidy credits could be offered produce electricity instead of ethanol."
I've nothing against solar (I have it on my home) but I think wind would be a better choice for farm lands as the lands could also be farmed whereas with solar the shading of the land would reduce crop yields. And no subsidy credits would be needed as the farmers could farm the very same lands they lease to the windmill builders.
Max wrote: "Complete nonsense, it's a lot more efficient and cheaper to build 1 massive solar power plant than 100 smaller ones atop buildings."
No, it's not. When you consider that hundreds, if not thousands of miles of roads and new transmission wires will be needed to reach these remote locations on BLM land any cost savings will turn into cost overruns. The current cost of building new roads in the USA exceeds 1 Million Dollars per mile. That doesn't even take into count the environmental consequences or the fact that road building requires lots of oil.
And you didn't even consider the fact that Interstate Highway solar and wind installations would in-fact be massive plants that are simply long and skinny instead of short and wide.
Reading my entire post would be helpfull to the Maxes of the world.
It's about setting precidents: Every time an acre of BLM land is developed the environmental value of the acre beside it drops and the developers, be they energy companies, miners, foresters, road builders or simple home builders make the case that the land is already scarred so why prevent their development when we didn't prevent the last development?
And if energy installations are build in the middle of nowhere then new towns will be needed to support those who live and work in the installations.
Reply
david 6:17PM (3/15/2009)
Solar array has nothing but good impact for environment
http://www.dmsolar.com
Reply
Rain 9:11PM (3/15/2009)
"Should We just say no to green zones?"
No!
Reply
Bob 11:54PM (3/15/2009)
Interesting article and responses. I think the blogger is right - let's cover roads, rooftops, etc. with solar cells in the city so there is easy access to the power lines. Large parking lots are great places to put in solar cells - at least here in Los Angeles. In fact, our local power company (DWP) does that. With the solar cover, people's cars are spared sun damage from being in the sun all day.
Reply
NorthernPiker 11:28PM (3/15/2009)
The economies of scale of 1 large solar installation versus 100 small installations are not that great when the 100 solar systems are in one new subdivison using standardized BIPV components. Distributed power also makes more efficient use of the distribution grid than a centralized power plant and does not require long distance transmission lines - both single sources of failure and potential terrorist targets.
Reply
Matt 12:35AM (3/16/2009)
Clearly no green builders have put in their $.02 on this particular post, so bear with me. Distributed solar is the only logical way to implement the array if we're talking about photovoltaics. In addition to the savings in resources required to build the array because of their proximity to the user, the array acts as shade for any structure on which they are placed. The most efficient use of said shade is generally a building that is used in the daytime, like an office or a warehouse. Households that are empty in the daytime will also see benefit, but the ability to let the temperature fluctuate while vacant means less energy used because the difference in internal and external temperature is smaller. Furthermore, the best place to start new construction is in a flat open area. Lets think... where is a convenient flat, open area that we can put lots of new panels.... Oh, a big flat roof! Why, that's no more than 20 ft away from a transmission line, how convenient! And it saves on cooling because it's absorbing the sun's rays? Neat!
This is seriously a no-brain-er. Why would you spend the extra money, use the extra materials and destroy reasonably natural habitat when you can install the same cells cheaper, faster, and more efficiently on top of every Lowes and Home Depot in the country? Oh, and I'm a cost estimator for a general contractor... we've looked at it; the cost of upgrading a roof to support panels is usually either $0 or nearly $0 since they have to take a certain uplift wind load that far outweighs the dead load of the panels. If the roof is not able to support the angled panels, you can just wait a year or two for the roll on stuff to make it to mass market. Keep It Simple Stupid!
Reply
Nick 2:21AM (3/16/2009)
We're assuming that Los-Angeles gets the same sun as the Death Valley here ??
Why are solar power plants built in a desert scorched by a blazing hot sun most of the year? hmmm.....let's think hard...why why.....
I got it!
It's because there's more SUN POWER to be harnessed than atop Home Depot in L.A.
Los Angeles is a dirty city with filthy air, you would have to hose off the panels every other day (not kidding) and besides, it would produce only part of the power used by these stores, not enough to power other buildings, cities and even states.
Folks, we're talking about massive power plants here that would send power to the rest of the U.S. Every square inch of roof in L.A. wouldn't remotely be enough for that and would cost a lot more....think of the costs of installation! Think of all the converters, inverters and control systems that would need to be installed.
This thread is ridonculous. Roof mounted solar panels are fantastic, but the houses in the west can't be compared to Gigawatt plants in the arid desert.
Reply
jim 10:13AM (3/16/2009)
Why stop at roof tops of industrial/commercial buildings? Build the collectors over the parking lots, which are already of a significant dimension and from an environmental POV, despoiled. Panels deployed in the desert will be mounted above ground anyway and while the structure will differ, cars can continue to park under them. Benefits would be placing production closer to use, providing production opportunities geographies whose open space is primarily forest, most of the eastern third of the country and much of the northern tier.
Additionally they would provide protection from inclement weather and old sol.
Reply
Recyclebill 8:49PM (3/16/2009)
NorthernPiker,
Interstate 40 exceeds 2500 miles in length. That's one big massive piece of land that could be generating electricity.
Matt,
It's good to see someone here who knows what he's talking about. Sadly, most people who commented here before you came will never return to read your rational and realistic thoughts.
Nick,
Ever seen what a sandstorm does to a glass covered solar panel? Makes cleaning off the dirt sound easy. And as it just so happens, US deserts ARE NOT the sunniest places in America. Turns out LA gets more sun than most American deserts. So does Myrtle Beach, South Carolina and a fairly large number of places located along America's east and west coasts. You know, where most of the people live. And despite what some people might believe, it DOES rain in California.
And did you even think about the cost of getting energy moved from the middle of nowhere or the energy losses in thousands of miles of transmission lines?
Jim,
Without a doubt, people living in places like say, Pheonix and Tuscon will agree with you if it ever happens. By the way, someone tell Nick that Pheonix and Tuscon ARE in the middle of the desert.
Reply
dwarg 4:40PM (3/17/2009)
I'm glad you brought up the energy loss due to resistance. I've been promoting more small solar installations tied to commercial and residential land rather than larger rural installations for all the reasons you've cited, as well as, what I think is a psychological factor. If we call it energy independence, to me it should make us feel independent. While using more renewable energy is priority #1. I would rather replace what we have now with a system that gives individuals and business owners something that offers a possibility of ROI rather than just continued dependence on a power company.
Bill 11:10AM (3/18/2009)
Plus there's the psychological conservation factor of having "personal" RE installations: if you have a fixed amount of RE that you've installed you're more likely to adapt your energy consumption to fit that amount. Kinda like eating at a buffet vs. an a-la-carte restaurant!
Uncle B 2:57PM (5/07/2009)
With the American appetite for energy as big as it is, we are going to have to do both, and then some nuclear on small scale for emergency services like civil defense units, hospitals, police installments and some government offices! We still won't have enough, and will import oil for fire-trucks, most planes, most boats. Even if we perfect bio-diesel, getting Yankee Doodle to give up his gas roadsters will be very difficult. I bet we use it all, go searching for more, and fry ourselves in our own fat before the end!
Reply