Not in Anyone’s Backyard—Protect the environment or create renewable energy? (Solar in the Mojave)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/230681

Not in Anyone’s Backyard

Protect the environment or create renewable energy? A new bill shows they're far from the same thing.

By Daniel Stone | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 13, 2010

You can't blame California for not being ambitious. In 2008, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger set the bold goal that by 2020, a third of the state's power would come from renewable sources. Not bad for the nation's most populous state and among the world's top 10 largest economies. At the time, it was a target miles ahead of any other state, and a fairly risky one at the beginning of a would-be global recession that would drive the Golden State deep into the red.

It's easy to see why Schwarzenegger thought it was possible. Earlier that year, oilman T. Boone Pickens characterized the Southwest U.S. as the Saudi Arabia of solar power, offering the choicest elevation and sun strength in the world for optimal power generation. On that, everyone agreed. Where to put the solar panels continues to be a different story. Everyone's for renewable energy, just not when solar or wind farms block their view or drive down property values.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein revived the debate last month with a wilderness designation bill intended to rope off more than http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=14d49cae-7398-4d7e-8693-40ed19b44299">half a million acres of Southern California land between Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve, restricting the area to both solar developers and off-road vehicles. Such prime desert land shouldn't be touched, she has argued, and the accentuated effects of global warming will make that territory increasingly valuable to desert wildlife.

That kind of reasoning, though, has some energy developers accusing Feinstein of pulling the NIMBY card—wanting renewable energy at any cost, but hollering "not in my backyard" when looking at the map. A valid criticism, perhaps, considering all of the protected land would be in California, even though the Mojave's prized ecosystem extends into parts of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.

…

[msongs]

1. ROOFTOP solar on every suitable house/building NOT corporate solar farms nt

[Dogmudgeon]

2. That won't help at all

Ask yourself: Who makes the solar panels?

It's the Corporations.

Solar energy development is a capital-intensive pursuit, like ALL forms of energy development. So you can either pay a corporate utility each month for your feed, or you can pay a corporate bank each month for financing your off-grid system.

There is actually nothing wrong with the corporate system -- EXCEPT that it has become autonomous and operates at the expense of the public. Power-mad. The Supreme Court ruled that incorporated businesses have all the rights of individuals, but none of the responsibilities. The solution is to control the corporations -- actually, corporate law and finance. At that point, energy costs will come closer to reality.

The dream has been that Everyman could sink a couple hundred dollars and some sweat equity into store-bought hardware and free his family from the evil corporate web forever. And it is possible to reduce one's exposure that way, if you have the tools and know-how, but complete corporate liberation is not possible in a complex society. The solution is to regain control of the conduct of business and finance, which is itself impossible except through political action. And complaining online that "Obama has betrayed us to the DLC!" does NOT count as political action.

Energy development is a Good Thing. But it isn't a political silver bullet.

--d!

[Ready4Change]

3. Yes it will help. Just not a 100% solution.

There is no 100% solution. If you have one I'd love to hear it.

Clean coal isn't clean.
Nuclear faces huge political obstacles and resistance from environmental interests.
Hydro is only useful in local areas, and also raises environmental issues.
NG is better than clean(er) coal, but only just.
Wind is much like solar. Works in spots, not a 100% solution.
Bio-fuels are really just solar in organic form.
Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source.
Fusion is, thus far, a pipe dream.

What else you got?

[tinrobot]

4. Why does it have to be either/or?

Attack it from both sides, I say.

Let the corporations replace their fossil fuel plants with solar/wind/etc. Give them incentives, if needed. They're probably the only ones who can do advanced things like concentrated solar power, which has the potential to store energy overnight.

While that's happening, continue the incentives for individuals and businesses to install rooftop solar with PV panels.

[tinrobot]

5. Have you ever driven through that area?

I did about two months ago. I decided to take the long way home from Las Vegas to Los Angeles and went right through the middle of that tract of land.

There's a LOT of space in that part of California. There's also a lot of ghost towns (or near-ghost towns like Amboy) on either side of old Route 66, a lot of discarded development, as well as a lot of railroad development, so many parts of that land are far from pristine.

Nevada has their Solar One installation just north of the border in the same desert. I actually stopped and looked at it. It's one of the largest plants of it's type in the world, yet from the highway, it looks like a little blip on the land.

There's also a ton of wind energy in those parts as well.

Harvest the sun and the wind there, plenty of room for it.