Conservation group sues to stop California solar plant

[Monsoon]

By Nichola Groom – Mon Jan 17, 1:20 am ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – A U.S. conversation group has sued the federal government over its approval of a major solar power plant in the California desert, the latest in a string of challenges to the nation's renewable energy goals from the environmental community.
According to court papers, the non-profit Western Watersheds Project alleged U.S. regulators approved Brightsource Energy's 370-megawatt Ivanpah solar energy plant without conducting adequate environmental reviews, and asked the court to order the defendants to withdraw their approvals.
The complaint names the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the agencies' heads and other staffers, as defendants. None was immediately available for comment.
"In an ill-conceived rush to accommodate massive renewable energy projects ... the federal defendants precipitously approved unnecessarily destructive energy development of the California Desert Conservation Area without first conducting adequate environmental reviews."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110117/ts_nm/us_brightsource

WTF? Who's side are these people on? We need green energy, no matter the consequences, or we'll all be dead in 10 to 15 years anyway. Who gives a F about some desert wasteland anyhow.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. It's a desert

And the little critturs will use the shade to their benefit.

[tinrobot]

16. Not true.

The critters have evolved to thrive in that particular environment, not a shadier one.

[bananas]

21. That environment isn't going to last, because of global warming.

The critters are going to have move anyway as the climate changes.

[tinrobot]

36. So your point is that we should stop protecting species...

...because we're warming the planet anyways?

Not sure what to say about that.

[bananas]

43. No, that's not my point at all

You wrote "The critters have evolved to thrive in that particular environment, not a shadier one."
I was pointing out that that particular environment will no longer exist in that particular place.
Some desert areas will get more rain, changing the ecosystem, predators from other areas will move in, etc.
The environment is changing.
The way to protect species is to stop global warming, and that will require large desert solar farms (and many other things, including rooftop solar, off-shore wind, etc).
You don't seem to understand the magnitude of the problem.

[txlibdem]

49. Many just don't understand the magnitude of the problem. So True!

Bananas is making the sanest point in this sub-thread. The problems are *global* in scope and their consequences will be borne by us all, in every ecological niche and every location on the globe. Even Antarctica, once thought so remote and unchangeable, will be facing species extinction due to global climate change! This is a planet problem and it will never get solved when everyone is thinking of selfishly "protecting" their tiny little corner of it --no matter what, your little patch of ground is going to be monumentally affected, and in ways that you probably aren't prepared for. Those are the cold hard facts.

[Kolesar]

27. #1 Best post

Ivanpah is hardly an ecological treasure like the praries of Illinois.

[hunter]

32. Are you missing a sarcasm tag perhaps?

Seeing all those prairie acres paved over with corn to make fuel ethanol, high fructose corn syrup, and feed for animals abused in highly polluting factory farms is an equal blight.

I'm fairly certain we could reduce our environmental footprint, restore native prairies and forests, protect the deserts from further human encroachment all while improving our overall standard of living.

[Kolesar]

34. Very imaginative

What it has to do with my post ... I don't know.

[Nihil]

44. Pretty obvious really (if you try reading the post you replied to)

If you were to tell Hunter which words you were having difficulty with,
I'm sure he'd substitute smaller ones for you.

:shrug:

[msongs]

2. CA solar should be on rooftops of houses and buildings not corporate controlled rip offs nt

[RKP5637]

3. Very good point! n/t

[Monsoon]

5. Houses maybe. What do you do with multi story buildings?

How much roof space is there on a 20 floor office complex?

[Kali]

6. have you driven through or flown over the suburban southwest?

enough single story tile roofed stucco boxes to provide space for a hella lot of panels!

[XemaSab]

8. There are a shocking number of

warehouses in LA.

Even relying on private homeowners to foot the bill is... short sighted.

[Monsoon]

10. Yep, I live here.

I have half my roof covered now thanks to SRP and state subsidies. They don't even cover my power needs now, and the meter never runs backwards like they promised.

[XemaSab]

9. So much word

n/t

[tinrobot]

17. Power for the people, not big energy.

Centralized solar is simply a way for big energy to maintain it's grip on electricity.

The more people who put solar on their rooftops, the looser that grip becomes.

[stuntcat]

24. So much word, x2

.

[joshcryer]

30. Prices are coming down, I expect solar shingles to be competitive with actual shingles...

...within the decade.

Don't get a new roof, you'll be able to have shingles installed.

[Kablooie]

42. If it's not kick started with major desert systems we'll never the rooftops.

Someone's got to start making real money with solar before it will take off.
Once that's happened the opportunities for solar will expand.
If it doesn't happen solar will remain a minor, expensive niche product and oil will remain king.

[joshcryer]

47. Brightsource Energy's 370-megawatt Ivanpah solar energy plant is CSP, not PV.

You aren't putting CSP on roofs and CSP costs are already as low as they're likely to get (the brunt of costs are in the circulatory and generator systems, mirrors and servos are nothing on the scheme of things).

[txlibdem]

50. Not all desert projects are CSP. And actually some people ARE putting CSP on their roof.

Not all solar projects in the American Southwest are CSP. The Nellis Solar Project, for instance, is PV. That's a relatively small, 14 MW project. Granted, all the large solar projects are CSP for one reason: is costs less so they can sell power at competitive prices.

The idea of CSP on your rooftop has been overlooked, in my opinion, because people have the preconceived notion that only PV is suitable for rooftops. That may soon change:

...the return on investment on the heat2power CSP solution is much faster than for other solar options.

“The cost is roughly €300/kw (US$407/kw) for a heat2power engine, compared with around €2000/kw (US$2,712/kw) for a Stirling engine or €1000/kw (US$1,356/kw) for a steam turbine,” he says.

Compared to other small-scale renewable energy options, micro CSP is a more efficient and, given its capacity for storage, a more stable option.

“Using micro CSP, heat can be stored which then can be used to generate power or steam when the load is higher in the evening or when the sky is cloudy,” points out Kasetti. “CSP is also much more stable than the PV which is subject to fluctuations,” he adds.

http://theothersolar.com/?p=186

The French company behind heat2power CSP might be able to make significant inroads into the rooftop solar market:

The conversion of solar heat into electricity is currently often done with Rankine Cycle engines and with Stirling engines; sometimes also with Organic Rankine Cycle engines. From various sources we have learned that Organic Rankine Cycles are not the easiest technology to maintenance in developing countries; Stirling engines remain complex and are actually quite heavy (see example1 and example2 with 200 kg {440 lbs} for 3.7kW) and expensive. Rankine Cycle engines (steam engines) need cooling for which a lot of water is needed (cooling towers) which is an important inconvenience in dry and sunny countries. The heat2power engine running on solar heat overcomes these inconveniences:

• it has a high power density which lowers the cost of construction
  
• it is cheap to produce because it is based on mass produced automotive technology
  
• it is easy to maintenance
  
• it requires no cooling towers because it runs on air and rejects heat with hot exhaust gas

heat2power CSP market development

heat2power seems to be the perfect technological partner for solar power. Therefore we are developing this market with partners in solar concentrating equipment to offer low cost energy solutions for developing countries. We are currently working with Kyoto Energy (http://www.kyoto-energy.com/) to come up with our first product that will be an electric generator of 15 kW including a thermal buffer so that electricity can be generated around the clock. Since a lot of electrical equipement in developing countries is based on mobile power supplies and runs on DC (LED lighting, battery chargers, mobile phone chargers, 12/24V iceboxes, laptop computers) we can directly offer DC output instead of AC output which reduces the cost of an installation even further since no inverter is needed. Because electricity is consumed locally, AC which is normally used to transport electricity over long distances with minimal losses is not required. For larger power outputs AC power will be available as well. This represents a major market potential for traditional power generation equipment suppliers. They are also invited to contact us if they desire to develop in the solar power applications.

The low grade heat that is rejected by the heat2power engine is sufficiently high to be used for air conditioning systems, drying processes and desalination of sea water. The evolution of our products therefore focusses on integrating these functions and here also we have selected potential partners. We also plan to have power outputs available in the range from 10 kW to 300kW.

http://www.heat2power.net/en__markets_solar.php

Taking their figure of $407 per kW, the 15kW unit would cost $6,105. You wouldn't even get 2kW of solar PV for that price.

Micro CSP is definitely a technology to keep an eye on for the future.

[Kali]

4. wasteland?

well, no that is usually the terminology used by land speculators and "developers"

I suspect there is actually ample space to do the project without too much detriment to the local environment, but a bigger issue for me is the mindset of large corporate energy providers. Seems to me there are plenty of rooftops that could be retrofitted in the urban areas where this energy is used to do the job.

[davidinalameda]

7. what the cost between that and the solar farm?

[Kali]

11. I have no clue

suspect short term the big project is cheaper/easier to implement, but long term???

[defendandprotect]

12. Either this is a faux "enviromental group" or they have a good reason ....

back later to try to read the article --

[Odin2005]

13. Probably Luddites that suddenly turns on any form of Green energy that becomes viable.

[Nihil]

14. Possibly. They might also be concerned about slash & burn developers ...

... who prefer to pocket the subsidies whilst doing the "easy option"
and folding the company (hence any liabilities) before leaving less
than useful scrap lying across the now-no-longer-wilderness?

:shrug:

I fully support PV in situations/locations where it is the best option
(e.g., small to medium scale in remote communities that are currently
off-grid + the rooftops of factories, shopping malls, warehouses & homes
in the urban environment) but am very wary of the speculator-driven
developer "solutions" that trash the very planet that we're trying to save.

Sometimes even good high-technology solutions aren't quite so black & white
(or rather, the solution is good but the implementation is the grey bit).

[phantom power]

15. "no matter the consequences"

That is a remarkable statement, if you think about it.

PS: welcome to DU
:hi:

[txlibdem]

18. This group embodies the myopic, disastrous focus of most "environmental" groups

Each of these groups seems to have their own little niche, a singular focus on one tiny corner or one species, and will fight with all their might to "win" for their cause no matter the consequences for the rest of the world.

This group casts a wider net than most:

The mission of Western Watersheds Project is to protect and restore western watersheds and wildlife through education, public policy initiatives and litigation.

Western Watersheds Project is a non-profit conservation group founded in 1993 with 1600 members and with field offices in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and California. WWP�s headquarters is located in Hailey, Idaho and the group works to influence and improve public lands management in 8 western states with a primary focus on the negative impacts of livestock grazing on 250,000,000 acres of western public lands. WWP has an annual budget in 2007 of $650,000.

WWP works in partnership with the Oregon Natural Desert Association in Oregon, Forest Guardians in New Mexico, the Center for Biological Diversity in Arizona, the American Lands Alliance in Washington, D.C; and the Larch Company in Ashland, Oregon. With these groups WWP co-founded the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign that supports federal legislation for a generous and voluntary federal grazing permit buyout program to compensate ranchers and restore public lands. Congressman Raul Grijalva of Arizona sponsors that legislation.

WWP�s long-term partner in our efforts to bring the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service into compliance with national environmental laws is the non-profit environmental law firm Advocates For The West in Boise, Idaho.

http://www.westernwatersheds.org/wwpinfo/aboutwwp.html

They seem to be in earnest about protecting their turf from any and all activities of man including grazing, thinning the predator populations, etc. The problem is, if these type groups succeed in blocking the massive expansion of solar power in the southwest that we need to avoid most of the catastrophic effects of global climate change, the death toll to other species will be incalculable. Ocean acidification will cause extinctions of massive numbers of sea creatures. Rising seas will destroy wetland habitats in several states, causing extinction of some of the unique species there. Desertification will endanger or cause extinction for incalculable numbers of species that are now living in other parts of the southwest.

So by saving their target species they are, in effect, the executioner for thousands more species elsewhere. Who elected them God?!?

[Kali]

19. yeah it's Jon Marvel's baby

poor guy, some cowboys must have made fun of him when he was a kid or maybe he had an unfortunate encounter with a fresh meadow muffin.

he's a leave it alone, humans can't be a part of nature adherent

[txlibdem]

22. Guess he's never heard of Global Climate Change then?

The OP's story is exactly why I gave up on anything good ever coming from environmentalist groups. It's all about winning "the fight" and never a thought about the big picture, the consequences.

[hunter]

20. Good.

Keep this solar shit off my desert.

You want it, put it over parking lots or Wal-Marts or someplace else that's already been trashed.

Put it over Palmdale. They could use the shade.

[txlibdem]

23. "Keep this solar sh*t off my desert."

Wow. You've convinced me. To heck with saving the planet now, all I care about is ensuring your enjoyment of "your desert."

[hunter]

25. I've experience with thirty years of California wind and solar scams.

I've gone from anti-nuclear activist and enthusiastic supporter of solar and wind projects to weary cynic.

The solar and wind projects of my youth have all turned to crap. Looking back, they were crap to begin with pushed from the beginning by hucksters of various sorts, some sincere, some crooked. In that same time the nuclear power plants I once opposed have produced huge amounts of relatively clean and inexpensive electricity. If I had a "nuclear only" option on my electric bill, I'd do it.

State or federal subsidies for solar and wind energy are a waste of money and bad for the environment. The only subsidies worse are those for fossil fuels.

One of the major problems is the intermittent nature of wind and solar which, in effect, makes the distribution systems required much more expensive and environmentally destructive per kilowatt-hour delivered, be it in the form of "smart" power handling and storage systems, or simply the increased mass and footprint of transmission lines.

But the only really good answer to all these environmental and energy problems is to stabilize and reduce the earth's human population and to change our entire concept of what economic productivity really means: from the making, buying, and selling of crap to some much broader and less materialistic measure of human happiness and satisfaction.

And my desert is your desert too. You just don't know and appreciate it like I do.

[txlibdem]

26. I agree with some of what you wrote

Subsidies for fossil fuels: agreed. There are no good reasons for them.
Intermittent nature of solar and wind energy: agreed, with some caveats.
Nuclear power: agreed. I have posted on many occasions here on DU in support of nuclear power.
Our easily-manipulated consumer culture: agreed. Multinationals use psychiatrists, sociologists, behavioral scientists to sell us crap that we don't need while at the same time bankrolling politicians to bad mouth science at every turn.

We currently have just over 100 nuclear power plants which supply around 20% of our electricity. I'd like to have 200, supplying 40%. The rest can come from solar and wind with adequate storage. High Voltage DC transmission lines are a good idea whether we use solar and wind or whatever we're using now because it suffers far lower losses than our current high voltage transmission lines.

World Population is not under our control so talking about that as being any part of a solution won't work. We can only do what we can do.

[Kolesar]

28. My electricity costs 6 cents more than it does in the rest of Ohio because of the nuke plants

"relatively clean and inexpensive electricity"

If I could get over the scary management record of nuclear power, I would warm up to it.

[hunter]

29. Pacific Gas and Electric doesn't use much coal...

... but lots of natural gas.

Our electricity is EXPENSIVE, they're saying 35 cents a kilowatt hour if you plug in your electric car. It's a tiered rate, so the more you use, the more you pay per kilowatt hour.

Nuclear and hydro are the inexpensive portion of this mix.

Ohio electricity is cheap because they burn coal. The costs in damage to the environment, and damage to people are not paid by the people burning the coal or buying the electricity. They are paid by all of us.

[joshcryer]

31. Here in Colorado we'e been expanding natural gas and wind and it's made the rates go up.

Oh and our coal emissions have gone up, too, for some odd reason, but that causes much debate I don't feel like getting in to.

[guardian]

51. No

Expansion of natural gas supplies did not make prices go up. Natural gas rates went up in Colorado because Colorado natural gas is now connected to the rest of the country and must compete nationwide for demand.

http://www.prlog.org/10076386-opening-of-rockies-express-pipeline-signals-higher-natural-gas-prices-in-colorado.html

[joshcryer]

56. Expansion of natural gas did not make prices go up but Colorado expanded natural gas supplies.

:rofl:

[guardian]

57. Are you on drugs?

Seriously, I have no idea what you are trying to say. If there is a thought in there let me know.

[Kolesar]

33. Downstate Ohio electricity is cheap because the plants are paid off and not in the rate base

...so the price for electricity is largely the cost of fuel.

We in the First Energy area are stuck paying for $20 billion dollars worth of nuclear plants.

[joshcryer]

46. Electricity is "cheap" there because most of the coal plants are exempted from the Clean Air Act.

Simple fucking math, the plants were built long before the Clean Air Act and were simply "upgraded" over time (irony being that most of these plants hardly have anything original but the foundation).

They spew copious amounts of CO2 at the cost of citizens.

[G. Odoreida]

59. Great philosophy, so far it has failed as a political platform

"to change our entire concept of what economic productivity really means: from the making, buying, and selling of crap to some much broader and less materialistic measure of human happiness and satisfaction."

Repugs all say: "drill baby drill, build more nukes, we'll make sure you can afford to drive that Hummer"

Democrats (mostly) say: "this green stuff is good for the economy, we'll have more jobs and more cash floating around, it's not gonna cost much at all"

No one who is seriously running for office says: "We have to redefine what we think of as 'prosperity' and y'all are going to have to get along with a lot less stuff."

[txlibdem]

60. President Carter's ouster taught the politicos what happens when you actually tell the truth

Pres. Carter was exactly right in everything he said, based on the intel his advisors were giving him. He knew we couldn't "drill our way out" of dependence on foreign oil. That lie is still making traction with the idiots who vote for Repugs. Some people are math challenged.

Pres. Carter was right on:
... foreign oil
... coal gasification as a temporary step to gain energy independence
... energy efficiency improvements in buildings and appliances
... solar power
... electric vehicles

One thing Carter didn't factor in is the ingenuity and productivity of the American worker. He projected that we would be 100% energy independent by the year 2000. But look at what happened with the Human Genome Project: when Americans get started on a well-defined project someone will find a way to do it cheaper, better and faster. I think he oversold the doom and gloom and forgot to stress the economic benefit from keeping all those billions of dollars in OUR country instead of sending that over to the middle east.

Too bad the idiots didn't want to hear the truth. They wanted to elect a washed up actor who made pretty speeches while selling out the nation to the corporate kleptocracy and taking the first steps toward destroying the safety nets for working families.

[tinrobot]

37. Land is a resource. Like any resource, we should be careful about using it up.

Doesn't matter if it's desert, forest, or something else.

We've already developed huge swaths of land to put in subdivisions, strip malls, industrial buildings, and parking lots. All of those places can easily support solar panels. Why use up more land when an existing parking lot or rooftop would work just fine?

[XemaSab]

38. The parking lot at the Sierra Nevada brewery is shaded with solar panels

I've thought before that a partnership with Wal-Mart, Target, or Costco would make sense.

Clearly these companies have all looked at the budget and decided that it doesn't make sense to put in panels, but I wonder what the money would look like if a private group did a 50/50 split to put panels on the roof and parking lot, or something like that?

The best thing about a commercial first approach is that they have the capital to do it, and since they're usually not open half the night, battery technology is not such a concern.

Roof and parking lot panels are something that I am ok with, but DAMN they're spendy. It's an area that needs a kick in the pants to get moving.

[tinrobot]

40. Some actually use rooftops rather than parking lots.

Those big box stores have large, flat rooftops that are perfect for solar. Plus, rooftops are a lot more secure then open parking lots.

Rarely do I defend Wal-Mart, but they are starting to solarize their stores in some states. Not a huge investment, but at least its a start:

Walmart to Nearly Double Solar Energy Use in California:
http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/9091.aspx

[XemaSab]

41. The advantage of a parking lot in the Valley

is that it keeps your car from roasting. :o

[joshcryer]

48. Which would directly save on fuel usage, because air conditioners wouldn't need to run as hard.

Air conditioners use very little energy keeping a car cool, but to get it from a hot to cool state requires a lot of energy.

[tinrobot]

54. I'm all for solar covered parking lots.

It serves several purposes. Like you said, it keeps cars cooler. It also prevents the blacktop of the parking lot from adding heat to the surrounds, and saves a few acres of land from the bulldozer.

I'd actually be in favor of laws requiring that owners of large parking lots allow public utilities to install solar in the space above. Much more in favor of that than handing over virgin land to developers.

[OnlinePoker]

61. I don't understand why every airport doesn't have solar systems on their unused space.

They are flat, with very limited obstructions. They are normally close to civic areas which would negate the requirement for a lot of transmission infrastructure. Environmental impact would be minimal as most airports aren't known for their biodiversity.

[Nihil]

62. I suspect it's because of the glare ...

I doubt the pilots would be pleased by the thought of trying to land
on a runway surrounded by a field of mirrors, especially in the sunnier
parts of the country (i.e., those that would benefit the most from
solar arrays).

:shrug:

[Bigmack]

35. There's other sides to these stories....

In our area a bigtime corporation - might even be Brightsource - wants to put in a solar farm.

The problems are manifold.

They want to build on undisturbed desert, rather than the farmland and groves that have failed and are naked land. For those who don't know, desert is not without life, it's a very complicated and rich ecosystem. In the spring, our desert is covered with flowers, and people come from all over the world to see them, bringing money. The desert is a web of life.

Another problem. The farm would use water... lots of water.. to keep the arrays clean. The area is buying out farms and groves as fast as possible in order to save water because the aquifer is failing.

Yet another problem.... There is an airport close to the chosen area. Pilots are worried about being blinded by the reflections.

The locals generally see that their solar arrays... on their houses... work very well, and feel that rooftop arrays on the roofs of individual houses is the way to go.

A lot of folks on this thread accuse the protectors of being NIMBYs. Yes, we are. Why put solar farms in sensitive areas simply because nearby cities need lots more power? Why not solar-ize the cities?

[tinrobot]

39. Actually, I would welcome solar panels in my backyard, or on my roof.

In fact, I plan to purchase some in the near future.

Panels in our common desert, however? No reason to do that. Fill the cities with solar panels first, then use up the desert.

[Nihil]

45. Good luck with keeping them out.

> They want to build on undisturbed desert, rather than the farmland
> and groves that have failed and are naked land.

They want to play to the NIMBY "environmentalist-on-paper" market rather than
the people who actually understand ecological issues.


> A lot of folks on this thread accuse the protectors of being NIMBYs. Yes, we are.

No you're not - you have already stated that people have put arrays on their own
houses and that this has met with broad approval.


> Why put solar farms in sensitive areas simply because nearby cities need lots
> more power?

Cheap, looks good on paper, subsidies can convert to short-term profits easier,
saves anyone in the nearby cities having to worry their precious minds about
the C word ("conservation").


> Why not solar-ize the cities?

Too much paperwork = too much money lost in administration rather than paid
as dividends to the directors (before they fold & restart afresh).

[txlibdem]

52. "Environmentalists" who block solar power are dooming thousands of marine species to extinction

Here's a little tip to all the so-called "environmentalists" who are trying to block solar power projects in the desert:

Edit to add. Paraphrasing:

Due to rising atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century there has been a 26 percent increase in ocean acidification. This acidification has occurred with "startling" rapidity, scientists say - perhaps 100 times faster than anything Earth's sea life has experienced in millions of years.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x271375

We are already seeing sea corals dying off due to rising ocean acidity:

Ocean acidification reaches deep-sea corals

Published 15 December 2010
With increasing levels of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere and moving into the world’s oceans, marine waters have become more acidic, scientists have shown. The long hand of acidification is reaching far down in The Deep. Corallium rubrum (pictured here) and other deep-sea corals are now being affected.

To address the growing concern for acidifying marine ecosystems, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has awarded 21 grants under the Ocean Acidification theme of its Climate Research Investment. The awards are supported and managed by NSF’s Office of Polar Programs, Directorate for Geosciences and Directorate for Biological Sciences. Projects will support research on the nature, extent and effects of ocean acidification on marine environments and organisms in the past, present and future — from tropical systems to icy seas.

Animal species from pteropods — delicate, butterfly-like planktonic drifters — to hard corals are affected by ocean acidification; so, too, are the unseen microbes that fuel ocean productivity and influence the chemical functioning of ocean waters. As oceans become more acidic, the balance of molecules needed for shell-bearing organisms to manufacture shells and skeletons is altered. The physiology of many marine species, from microbes to fish, may be affected.

http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/ocean-acidification-reaches-deep-sea-corals/

Increasing Acid Could Kill Most Coral by 2050

By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 13 December 2007 02:01 pm ET
SAN FRANCISCO — The world’s coral reefs face almost certain death as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are absorbed by the oceans, acidifying the water in which corals live, a new study warns.

...snip...

“Before the industrial revolution, over 98 percent of warm water coral reefs were bathed with open ocean waters 3.5 times supersaturated with aragonite, meaning that corals could easily extract it to build reefs,” said study co-author Long Cao, also of the Carnegie Institution. “But if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes at 550 ppm—and even that would take concerted international efforts to achieve—no existing coral reef will remain in such an environment.”

At greatest risk of these changes are Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest living structure, and the reefs of the Caribbean Sea.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071213-coral-acid.html

They aren't environmentalists. They're self-serving hypocrites.

[hunter]

53. Meanwhile we keep burning coal.

That's THE issue.

Not reckless subsidized for-profit solar development on lands that ought to be left alone.

Coal is the monster. It's unethical to make environmental sacrifices in appeasement to the monster.

To kill coal we need to outlaw coal. Solar power plants on the desert will do nothing to kill coal, we'll just end up with both, especially if the increased east-west transmission capacity required by desert solar is used to import coal fired power from outside California.

I think it's very likely that solar plants on the California Desert will be backed by new coal plants across the state borders and that this is the actual unspoken plan of some supporters of desert solar.

[Nihil]

55. Thank you.

Sacrificing more and more undeveloped land whilst doing NOTHING to stop
the use of coal is just compounding the problem.

We KNOW that acidification is a major problem (one of the biggest if not
the actual biggest) but the offset of that problem by a shiny new solar
farm is microscopic and - more importantly - even that tiny amount would
be equally achieved by siting it on brown field land rather than virgin desert.

The environmental cost of that shiny new solar farm in the desert is however
irreversible.

[txlibdem]

58. We'll just have to disagree on the usefulness of desert solar projects

There are currently over 4 gigawatts of approved solar projects across the American southwest. That is a good start but we need 100 times that amount to get rid of coal. Is it hopeless? Will we be stuck with coal till the planet dies? No. Why would anyone assume that. We've only begun with solar power. The tiny (mostly demonstration) solar projects of the past are giving way to solar power installations that generate hundreds of megawatts each, and one of the approved plants produces 1 gigawatt. That is the future of solar power.

An additional 24 gigawatts are in the early stages of the approval process. Assuming that solar power will somehow increase coal use is just plain wrong.