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
I have no disagreement with the concept that we need to seek alternative means of generating electricity, but the more I've looked at the idea of huge solar arrays, the more I wonder if that is the best way.
Around here there are a number of buildings that now sport large arrays of panels on their roofs. Talking with some of the owners, I've learned that they are able to generate and store over half of the electricity they use in that building. They acknowledge that the cost of installing their systems was high and that they may not ever completely recoup the cost. Tax breaks helped, but didn't cover it all.
A couple of these owners have mentioned that they did it partly because of a sense of personal responsibility. One said, "Shouldn't I try to help? Shouldn't we all try to help?"
What if, somehow, we could find a way to encourage that kind of thinking in everyone? Instead, many powerful people and businesses spend enormous amounts of time and money trying discourage that approach. (Think oil and coal industries -- or the GOP fight against affordable health care.)
Could one of the worst problems we face be the lack of personal responsibility not only in our homes but in our legislatures as well? Right now in Utah there is a battle going on the back rooms of the Capitol over a bill that would encourage home owners to install solar panels on their roofs. On the other side are people who actually want to make it more difficult for a homeowner to obtain permits or permission from the city. One argument is that solar panels "reflect sunlight and create an unsightly glare."
Interestingly, every one of the legilslators who oppose this bill are members of ALEC -- the American Legislative Exchange Council. (If you don't know of ALEC, you need to Google it. ALEC is probably one of the worst enemies we face these days.)
One of the owners I spoke with -- he runs an autobody shop that has an enormous array on its roof -- told me that he knows some people think an investment like that is foolish. "And maybe it is. But I feel like I'm a pioneer. After all, weren't there people once who said it was foolish to try to build a city beside the Great Salt Lake?" He added that some people suggested he wait a few years until technology was better. "But I figured I could take advantage of what's there now and maybe by supporting the new industry of solar power, I could help them develop that better technology."
We need more people like him. Germany has had great success in developing alternative power sources that feed into their national electrical grid. Why can't we?
How many acres of empty roof tops are there in the United States? Germany is in a northern location but they seem capable of finding adequate sunlight for their rooftop installations. Why can't we?
We could. If we really wanted to . . . .
Great post Lee, rooftop solar is a sign of the future, if I was younger and had the cash, I would be installing it now. Here in California, solar panels are now being used even to run peoples well pumps. One of the advantages of rooftop solar, is that it negates to some extent the mega solar farms. Actually, my own home is in a great location, I need little energy to heat it in the winter, especially the last 3, it was 70 degrees yesterday, and the elevation is such that I need zero heating energy in the summer, except for hot water (I have an on demand hot water heater). I believe you are right, more and more countries are investing in renewable energy, that is good.
Uh, could you identify this "fight against affordable health care"? You really do like attacking strawmen don't you.
Apparently EC does not know the GOP controlled House of Representatives has tried at least 56 times to kill the affordable care act. That aside it might be that distributed energy in this country is opposed by the big utilities because it would diminish their control. Just a wild guess with no facts to back it up EC. The nice thing about distributed energy is the grid is already built to each house and business. It is subsidized of course but what is the subsidy in public land and the building of huge solar/wind farms and the transmission lines crossing public and private land?
It never ceases to amaze me how much mainstream environmentalism has changed. In the "old days," preserving landscape was everything. Now the movement is about making "deals." The Desert Protective Council gets my vote on these issues. You may contact them at http://dpcinc.org/ I also applaud NPCA. How will destroying the desert possibly "save us" from climate change? It won't, but it will sure make more billionaires at General Electric. Europe? They site these projects far better than we do, and most important, have real public transportation to back them up.
At least, one federal judge got the message early this month and sent a big wind farm in Nevada back to the drawing board. The EIS was totally bogus. Eagles, bats, and tortoises? What are those? The energy we make is GREEN! Lee is right. Put it on the roof and keep it out of the desert. The land is also a critical carbon sink, or did we forget where all biology comes from?
I am well aware of that Roger. Apparently you do not know that the "affordable care act" has done nothing but raise the cost of insurance and lowered the quality of health care. The GOP has no problem trying to make health care affordable, they just know that government intrusion into the market isn't the way to do it.
As to distributed energy - I have absolutely no problem with it. Just don't make me subsidize your purchases and don't frown when I laugh at you for wasting your money.
Lee Dalton. I've finally found something upon which to take your side.
Good post, Lee. I know that where some find desert to be simply 'wastelands', others find desert a rich natural landscape. Covering it with solar panels makes sense to the first half of the people.
Rooftop solar, now, makes a lot of sense. Bright minds addressing some of the points you've made to incent people to do that would seem to pay off in a much shorter run of the long run.