The timing no doubt was coincidence, but while Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was celebrating the country's largest solar project in California, two U.S. senators were introducing legislation to protect desert landscapes in the state.
The irony wasn't lost on the National Parks Conservation Association, which has questioned the location of the solar farm.
“There is a lot of celebrating today in the California desert. Senator Feinstein released the California Desert Conservation and Recreation Act and Sally Jewell flipped the on-switch at Desert Sunlight Solar plant. The confluence of these events highlights the important work that remains to be done in the California desert," said David Lamfrom, NPCA's California Desert associate director. "That includes permanently protecting some of the most beautiful and vibrant lands in America and the continued need to do a better job of siting renewable energy away from species-rich lands. Considering how important our national parks and protected lands are to our desert economy, finding this balance now is fundamental.”
Earlier Monday, the Interior secretary and the director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze joined California state and industry leaders to “flip the switch” on the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm. Now operating at full capacity, the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm is providing 550 megawatts of electricity to the grid, enough energy to power 160,000 average homes. The facility is estimated to displace 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year – the equivalent to taking 60,000 cars off the road.
“Solar projects like Desert Sunlight are helping to create American jobs, develop domestic renewable energy and cut carbon pollution,” said Secretary Jewell. “I applaud the project proponents for their vision and entrepreneurial spirit to build this solar project and commend Governor Brown for implementing policies that take action on climate change and help move our nation toward a renewable energy future.”
Desert Sunlight is the sixth solar project approved on public lands that is now operational. Together with wind, solar and geothermal, the renewable energy projects built on public lands since 2009 are producing over 2,200 megawatts of power, or enough to power almost 700,000 average homes. An additional 2,500 megawatts is currently under construction, including eight solar projects in California and Nevada.
Desert Sunlight is located on about 4,100 acres managed by the BLM in Riverside County, about 70 miles east of Palm Springs and six miles north of the rural community of Desert Center. The facility uses more than eight million First Solar photovoltaic modules to generate power with no air emissions, no waste production and no water use. The thin film technology has the smallest carbon footprint of any photovoltaic technology. The renewable energy is sold to Pacific Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Edison under long-term contracts.
As part of the Interior Department’s commitment to responsible development of renewable energy, the Desert Sunlight project underwent extensive environmental review and mitigation. The BLM worked in close coordination with Desert Sunlight, the National Park Service and other stakeholders to significantly reduce the proposed project’s total footprint down from the proposed 19,000 acres. The BLM is requiring that Desert Sunlight provide funding for acquisition and enhancement of more than 7,500 acres of suitable habitat for desert tortoise and other sensitive wildlife species to help mitigate the project’s potential impacts.
Also on Monday, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both California Democrats, introduced legislation that would expand by 75,000 acres the Mojave National Preserve and Death Valley and Joshua Tree national parks.
“This piece of legislation is the final chapter in a long effort to preserve one of the most magnificent landscapes in the United States,” Sen. Feinstein said. “We must ensure that critical parts of the California desert—with its mountain vistas, bighorn sheep, mule deer, desert tortoises, Joshua trees, Native American petroglyphs and much more—will be protected for all time.”
Comments
dup eliminated
It would seem that some folks are forgetting our code of conduct when it comes to comments, particularly these aspects:
Please study these aspects of the code, and then look at your own comments, both in this thread and elsewhere on the site. If what you've written falls under any one of these aspects, please don't let it happen again.
We'd hate to ban folks, but we also don't have the time to spend 24 hours a day monitoring comments. And, frankly, we really aspire to a higher level of debate.
The other option would be to not allow comments at all.
Pure fantasy
More fantasy. Perhaps you could provide some examples.
Resisting the subsidization of uneconomic activites is hardly a "sacrifice".
Just my opinion but, having the option and understanding that I have to choose one or the other, I would greatly prefer a 50 acre solar or wind plant than a 50 acre coal plant.
When we owned a farm in rural virginia, a power company wanted to put in a new coal fired plant less than 10 miles away. Besides the air pollution, we would have had to contend with the fly ash disposal (on-site), the slurry ponds, the increased rail and truck traffic. Property values went down but, lucky for us, rebounded a bit when the project was canceled.
Yes, any form of energy generation has its drawbacks. But I like breathing clean air and drinking clean water more than I like looking at beautiful landscapes. The footprint of a wind or solar plant is much more limited when pollution (air and water) is taken into consideration.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Legislative_Exchange_Council
http://www.alec.org/
http://betterutah.org/alec-members-in-the-utah-state-legislature/
My fight is not with conservatives per se, but with crooked politicians of any kind; with those who try to use money and power to cause harm to those less powerful; and with people who willfully make the decision to remain ignorant by obtaining their information only in one of the extremist echo chambers (left or right) rather than making an effort to learn the truth by stepping out of the chamber of propaganda into the light.
Alfred, with all due respect, I believe that people who are making an effort to help advance progress in the alternative energy industry are real American heros who are willing to put their dollars where it counts. While the extractive industries' push for continued subsidies for their industry, they continue to push for legislation or other policies that will hamper competition. Our legislators should have the good sense to level the playing field. But the playing field now has so much money piled on one end that the other team has to climb a very steep hill to reach the goal post.
It's also not necessary for everyone to spend $24,000 for roof top solar panels. If thousands of people across the country were to spend whatever they can afford, their collective contributions would have a terrific impact diminishing the harmful consequences of our dependence upon fossil fuels. Replacing those fuels cannot and will not be instaneous. But if we work together wisely, step by step, inch by inch, foot by foot, we will find ourselves far ahead of where we are now and where we will be in the future if we refuse to look to the future.
It absolutely stumps me as I try to understand why people who claim to support American businesses, jobs and leadership in the world are willing to sacrifice the opportunities that alternative energy offers.
I believe that we MUST start looking to the future and not try to cling to the past. If we don't, our grandkids are going to be in an awful pickle.
(edit)
The problem with your argument dahkota is that a 50 acre solar farm would generate about 10 megawatts of power. New coal plants are generating 100s or even 1000s of megawatts. You would need a 500 or 1000 or 10,000 acre solar farm to be equivalent.
Not to mention - you still need the coal plant for when the sun ain't shining.
The truth is worldwide humans keep digging themselves into an ever bigger hole when it comes to energy and natural resources. It is not very difficult to reduce our electricity use in our homes. The real problems arise in moving freight in trucks and people in cars, and having standby power available for our home and business electricity needs. Conservation and more efficient use of energy will put off the day of reckoning in developed countries. But as long as population contiues to grow and everyone wants a higher standard of living the end of prosperity will come for all but the rich and powerful.
Nice post Lee, I to find myself somewhat in disagreement with Mr. Runte on this issue.