First, my tip to raoul78 for his diary currently on the rec list in which he questions the recent decision of the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to halt further lease applications for large-scale solar applications beyond 125 applications already in hand, while BML and the Department of Energy conduct a thorough study of the possible environmental impact of such massive surface installations in 6 states. Having tipped my hat, I respectfully believe that raoul78 (and the NYT and the solar energy lobby) are wrong, and that the BML has made the right decision. However you cut it, one million acres of solar panels is an absolute environmental disaster the impact of which cannot be justified by the prospective energy benefits. More over the fold
Like raoul78, I am an avid environmentalist. Last year I bought a historic landmark home built in 1830. In an addition to basic energy efficiency make-overs such as changing all the light bulbs and installing energy star appliances, I have just cut the gas supply to the house and committed to an extensive geo-thermal heating and cooling installation that is currently under construction and carries a huge upfront price tag. In Connecticut there is no government subsidy for existing home owners like myself who turn to geothermal energy, although we currently have the nation's highest gas prices.
I have also looked quite closely into solar sources for my domestic energy and electricity within the limits that a historic landmark building presents, which is that 1000 sq ft of solar panels on the roof would most certainly ruin the integrity of the house and require for me to cut down the towering, 100 years plus oaks that surround it. It is a give and take situation in my case: to go solar for renewable energy, I would first have to do damage to both the environment and an important landmark of local and American industrial history.
As I contemplated this dilemma over the past full year, it has heightened my awareness of several issues concerning the quest for renewable energy. Like most things, renewable energy is not a simple, straightforward matter of solar panels and geothermal trenches and everyone is green and happy! No doubt it is the way to go, and this year alone I will be coughing out more than $50,000 for it. But, without looking at all the ramifications, a renewable energy system can also do more harm than good or at best neutralize its own benefits by virtue of its environmental or socio-cultural costs. The BLM is right; to have it make sense, one must look closely at all the implications.
In the recent BLM decision on granting land leases to the solar energy industry, there's a number of things at stake, and here are some of them:
Although the land that the solar energy industry wants for installations is desert, the desert is not simple barren land. Just like our national parks, the desert is a rich and important ecosystem. As such, it, too needs to be protected. One need, namely the need for renewable energy, does not trump the other, that is, the need to protect the unique and important animal and plant life of the desert which is a critical part of our overall environmental system, with implications for our weather, wind and rainfall patterns, and thus for agriculture and other areas of our fragile system.
You cannot rush in and cover one million acres of the desert ecosystem with plastic and silicon solar panels that effectively block out the sun for any life underneath, without doing serious, serious harm to the environment. Flora and fauna would disappear over time, driven out or driven to extinction. Evaporation and condensation patterns will be severely altered if not fully disrupted, with severe consequences for air streams, storm routines, etc. There will be costs, absolutely, and it's critical to know what those costs are.
By the way, how many solar panels will cover 1 million acres of land? Seems like an astounding number of them. What happens when they become obsolete: pray, where do you throw hundreds of millions of obsolete solar panels? Is there a landfill big enough out there for 1 million acres worth of obsolete solar panels?
Also, compared to the computer- and other industries, the energy industry has proven itself to be one of the most retarded industries ever. In every fundamental aspect, the size and format of solar panel technology has changed only marginally over 30 years just like the footprint of the battery in your car has yet to change since Johnson was president. The solar energy industry has hardly challenged itself to push research and design and come up with a new technology that has a smaller footprint and a higher energy output because it takes for granted that there is land and rooftops aplenty on which to plonk down huge, ugly, largely inefficiant panels of silicon and walk away. Imagine if over the past 40 years computer footprints remained the same!
If I were to author the BLM decision, I would ask the solar energy industry to use the estimated two years that the BLM's study would take, to focus on reducing the footprint of the technology. Rather than pour every ounce of its energy into lobbying, which the industry is apparently very good at, use the time to try and make the technology smaller, less redundant, less evasive, and more efficient.
If finding additional energy was all that mattered, as raoul78 seems to imply, why, we would be applauding John McCain's call to drill the shores of California. But we can't sacrifice one natural resource in order to promote the exploitation of another natural resource and still claim to be effective, efficient, or responsible.
I hope something good comes out of the BLM decision. A vast desert expanse carpeted with looming solar panels cannot be energy efficient or environmentally benign. Instead, it would be a catastrophe.