Tree-huggers v nerds—As the planet heats up, so do disputes between environmentalists

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13109915

Environmental politics

Tree-huggers v nerds

Feb 12th 2009 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition

As the planet heats up, so do disputes between environmentalists

Last December California approved a power line between San Diego and the Imperial Valley—a spot blessed with sun, wind and geothermal energy resources. The Sunrise Powerlink would twist around a state park, an Indian reservation and much of a forest (see map). Its builders would be banned from harming burrowing owls or rattlesnakes. It is just the sort of green infrastructure project that might be expected to delight environmentalists. Their response? An appeal and a petition to the state Supreme Court.

“Environmentalists have never been a well-mannered lot”, says Terry Tamminen, who has advised Arnold Schwarzenegger on climate change. But they seem to be becoming more ornery. A growing fear that the environment is on the brink of collapse is making many greens less willing to compromise, even with each other. And George Bush’s departure from the White House has removed a common adversary.

The fiercest disputes are over electricity transmission. Many environmentalists, including Mr Schwarzenegger, argue that more power lines must be built to connect cities with potential sources of renewable energy. The governor strongly supports the Sunrise Powerlink project. The Sierra Club opposes it, along with another line that would run east from Los Angeles. Together with the Centre for Biological Diversity, the organisation is holding out for a guarantee that the line will be used to transmit electricity solely from renewable sources. Environmental groups in Nevada and the Midwest have issued similar ultimatums.

To an extent this is a dispute between pragmatism and idealism. Politicians like Mr Schwarzenegger tend to believe that energy projects should be judged on whether they improve on current practice. Activists, by contrast, prefer to measure them against an environmental ideal. “A little bit better than the status quo isn’t good enough,” explains Bill Magavern, the Sierra Club’s California director. He wants power to be generated close to those who will use it, and envisages a rash of solar roofs in San Diego.

…

[XemaSab]

1. Interesting

n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. It's a conflict we seem to see played out here (DU E/E) every day

I like to fancy myself a realist/pragmatist with idealistic tendencies. I am a tree-hugging nerd. This often puts me in conflict with myself! ;-)

[XemaSab]

3. I think conservation of habitat is priority #1

We have to give the plants and critters somewhere to go. :(

That being said, solar thermal is pretty cool, but I wonder why it isn't built closer to population centers?

Shasta County is a big area, and we get lots of sun in the summer. We have extensive hydropower resources, and the potential for geothermal and a wind project which I am opposed to (fight Hatchet Ridge!). Why not put a solar thermal facility in, and make the county 100% renewable, with enough power to export to other counties?

I know it's rainy here during the winter, but I'd be curious about a "back of the envelope" calculation about the efficiency of building a solar thermal plant here versus building additional transmission lines to pull the power up from Southern California, Arizona, or whatever state that big proposed WAPA line will come from.

I'm not the biggest fan of a totally decentralized grid, but I suspect that the era of mega-plants may be drawing to a close.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Yeah, somehow, keeping them alive in zoos isn't the same, is it

As for why the solar plants are being built where they are, remember the famous Willie Sutton quote. When asked why he robbed banks, he replied "http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton/sutton.htm">Because that's where the money is."

Check out this map: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/market_economic_assess.html


At the same time, pragmatically, it's easiest to build this sort of thing where relatively few people live, and therefore, fewer people will object to it being built, "in (their) back yard." So, a location where there are miles and miles of (sun baked) "empty desert" is ideal.

When it comes to the efficiency of generating the power so far from where it will actually be used, it depends partly on the technology used to transmit that power. Many people are advocating the use of High Voltage Direct Current for this sort of transmission:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC#Advantages_of_HVDC_over_AC_transmission

…

The advantage of HVDC is the ability to transmit large amounts of power over long distances with lower capital costs and with lower losses than AC. Depending on voltage level and construction details, losses are quoted as about 3% per 1000 km. High-voltage direct current transmission allows efficient use of energy sources remote from load centers.

…

As for "Hatchet Ridge," I see that the local Audubon Society's final position is "http://www.wintuaudubon.org/ProgressReportOnHatchetRidge.pdf">we are not supporting, nor are we actively opposing the project." I think the National Audubon Society's position on wind turbines in general is a well balanced one.

[wtmusic]

5. Love it when two bad ideas consume their resources battling each other.

One: not enough power. Two: unwieldy, expensive infrastructure. Which would you choose?

I choose Three: safe nuclear.