The other day I saw this story come across the news wire:
WASHINGTON (AP) — California’s Mojave Desert may seem ideally suited for solar energy production, but concern over what several proposed projects might do to the aesthetics of the region and its tortoise population is setting up a potential clash between conservationists and companies seeking to develop renewable energy.
Nineteen companies have submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres, but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.
Feinstein said Friday she intends to push legislation that would turn the land into a national monument, which would allow for existing uses to continue while preventing future development.
It had to happen eventually — somebody finally took notice of the plans being made for gargantuan solar installations and started thinking about their environmental implications.
In January 2008, three solar scientists made a proposal in Scientific American that America produce all its electricity in the year 2050 by covering a mere 46,000 square miles of Arizona with a solar collectors. That’s one-third of Arizona, which is the fifth largest state.
Al Gore testified before Congress in February that we could do it on only 10,000 square miles – “a square one hundred miles on each side” – and accomplish this in the next ten years. He’s basing this on the claims of Cogentrix, a North Carolina company that just acquired the 20-year-old SEGS (Solar Energy Generating System) facilities in California.
Both these systems do not include energy storage, which could take up an equal amount of space. They also assume a wildly expensive reconstruction of the national transmission grid to 765 kilovolts so that all this electricity can be ferried around the country.
Yet nobody seems to ask the question, Where are we going to get 10,000 or 20,000 square miles of desert to do all this? The assumption – much like that of the early American pioneers – is that there are vast tracts of land somewhere out there in the West waiting to be put to our use. Has anybody ever heard the term “environmental impact?” Is it even conceivable that you can mark off this much land on the map and not come across some endangered species?
Here’s another consideration that you never hear about. One of the biggest problems with solar mirrors and photovoltaic panels is they get covered with dust and grim and lose much of their effectiveness. They have to be washed off frequently. Where, in the middle of the desert, do you find enough water to wash down 10,000 square miles of solar collectors at least once a month?
As all the facts come in, nuclear energy is starting to look awfully good. It’s principle advantage is its amazing energy density. The energy release from the uranium atom is 2 million times what you get from breaking a carbon-hydrogen bond in coal. And fossil fuels themselves have about 50 times the density of solar energy. That’s why the electricity generated from 75 square miles of solar collectors can be equaled by a mile-square coal or nuclear plant.
You can’t ignore physics indefinitely. All this is going to start playing a part in our energy discussions before long.
William Tucker has written about environmental and energy issues for twenty-five years. His work has appeared in Harper’s, The Atlantic, National Review, New Republic, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. His most recent book Terrestrial Energy (Bartleby) is about nuclear power. He is a regular guest contributor to The Infrastructurist.
March 25th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
This then would be solar’s “dirty little secret”. This and whatever toxins have to be mined/synthesized/dumped to produce them.
I am a huge fan of distributed solar, but not so much of these huge proposed solar farms. Good on Infrastructurist for calling attention to this issue.
The ideal places for solar are 1) on rooftops of buildings, and 2) in space. IF we ever get launch costs to a reasonable level, and/or develop the ability to manufacture solar panels in orbit from extra-terrestrial materials, orbital solar will be the way to go. Two HUGE ifs. But these solar farms are unfortunately like many technological solutions - they solve one narrowly defined problem, but create others.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
The comparison has to include the land consumption of mining. For example, when solar thermal is compared to coal mining, it appears that solar uses less land, especially when the time horizon is extended over 30-50 years and longer. And the environmental impacts of coal mining extend to water pollution, aquifer disruption, air and particulate pollution, and more.
Uranium mines are likely to consume much less land for an equivalent amount of energy. For instance, this blogger estimates they are nine time more land efficient. On the other hand, uranium mines can pose significant health risks and must be managed and remediated more carefully.
Bottom line, there are pros and cons to every technology, and we need accurate and complete models and evidence to judge which are best for the environment, economics, and human health.
March 26th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Thanks, Laurence.
But don’t you think the data are pretty much in? There’s just no political appetite for accepting the fact that intelligent deployment of nuclear is by far the best and safest alternative. But it clearly is. You catch flack for saying that though, and that’s why I admire Bill’s willingness to do so without pretending to weigh nonexistent uncertainties.
-Jebediah
March 26th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
so i have a 3KW PV system on my roof. i can make 16KW on a sunny cool day in march.
that will make electric hot water, run a dehumidifier in the basement and some minor
electric heating. 5 minutes of microwave, a two cup coffee maker and surfing the web for 4 hours. at night, if cool, i burn wood. it still requires 40 KW per day if electric baseboard heat kicks in. this system will run three 6000 BTU air conditioners during the day. if i had the upfront cash of $50 grand a 6KW PV system would have powered
the place. but who has $50 grand laying around even with a 30% tax credit? not many.
local roof top PV is the way to go rather then big centralized plants. all urban and suburban areas already have roof tops waiting to be retro fitted. the environmental cost has been payed from that development paradigm. a big but….almost all systems are grid tied. no juice from fossil fuel plants, no juice from roof top systems. brown out or black out grids means no feed in from roof tops. best consider dual grid tied and battery back up systems and all that entails. that is just my opinion, i could be wrong. dont listen to me, i spent $25 grand installing a 3KW PV grid tied system on my roof.
March 26th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
While flying over southern CA last summer, I was astonished by the amount of rooftop real estate that could easily be used for solar power, without destroying our fragile deserts. By generating it where it’s needed we’d eliminate the transmission losses too. Let’s build our million solar roofs, and just keep going!
March 26th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
[...] When Are We Going To Start Talking About The Environmental Cost Of Solar? [...]
March 26th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
[...] When Are We Going To Start Talking About The Environmental Cost Of Solar? Yet nobody seems to ask the question, Where are we going to get 10,000 or 20,000 square miles of desert to do all this? The assumption – much like that of the early American pioneers – is that there are vast tracts of land somewhere out there in the West waiting to be put to our use. Has anybody ever heard the term “environmental impact?” Is it even conceivable that you can mark off this much land on the map and not come across some endangered species? [...]
March 27th, 2009 at 5:43 am
There are no silver bullets.
Large centralized solar plants present challenges, notably the delivery of energy from remote locations to population centers. Ditto incidentally, for wind power.
“A million solar roofs” entails installation at the “retail” price, with incentives (subsidies) going to a fortunate few able to front half the cost.
One solution is development along the SunEdison model, with third-party investors developing projects on large commercial and municipal buildings, particularly schools, having broad flat roofs.
Using this template, investors own and operate the system under a long-term power purchase agreement, with the “host” customer paying only for the power actually delivered behind the meter. Investors capture the financial incentives, but at least in the case of schools, the entire community benefits. Also, installation of 100-300k systems comes at the “wholesale” price.
Weight and roof penetrations present challenges. Think thin-film.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:24 am
I really don’t see how these gargantuan, government subsidized solar farms (or wind farms; similar problem) get at the core of the problem… namely, distributing the cost and distributing the power itself.
Things like tax credits for installing home PV arrays to offset some amount of personal use are really the way to go. That would not only put the burden on the energy user, but also distribute that cost fairly, so that I, as a Floridian, am not paying via federal tax to ship power to Southern Californians. It would also create a steady increase in the number of PV arrays being purchased and installed, so the R&D and engineering can have time to scale in quality with volume.
@george messier brings up a good point, how the community would benefit on the whole with commercial and municipal projects building in some alternate power sources. I would be in full support of this locally with schools and community centers.
I also agree with @Jebediah that, even though a general taboo, nuclear does shove this whole issue to the back burner. It just sounds a lot more dangerous than it is.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:48 am
solar energy advantaegs…
An interesting post by a bloger made me ……