According to the New York Times, a major solar power project in California has been canceled. It seems that even creating solar power in the middle of nowhere in a desert can’t get past California environmentalists these days. If not here, where then on earth will be acceptable? Don’t hold your breath.
Excerpt:
BrightSource Energy Inc. had planned a 5,130-acre solar power farm in a remote part of the Mojave Desert, on land previously intended for conservation. The company, based in Oakland, Calif., said Thursday that it was instead seeking an alternative site for the project.
The Wildlands Conservancy, a California environmental group, had tried to block the solar development, as had Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, who proposed that the area become a national monument.
The land was donated by Wildlands to the Interior Department during the Clinton administration, with assurances from President Bill Clinton himself, the group says, that it would be protected in perpetuity. But the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a Bush administration initiative, opened the land to the development of solar projects.
Here’s the details on the project from the company website:
BrightSource is currently developing its first solar power complex in California’s Mojave Desert. The Ivanpah Solar Power Complex will be located in Ivanpah, approximately 50 miles northwest of Needles, California, and about five miles from the California-Nevada border. The complex will be a 6-square mile facility (4065 acres) within the 25,000-square mile Mojave Desert and will generate enough electricity to power 140,000 homes and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 450,000 tons per year.
Fast facts
* Location: Ivanpah, California
* Output: Up to 440 megawatts
* The Ivanpah Solar Power Complex will power 150,000 homes and reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by more than 450,000 tons per year.
* The Ivanpah Solar Power Complex will nearly double the amount of solar thermal electricity produced today in the US.
* Ivanpah will create 1,000 jobs at the peak of construction.
Project details
The 440 megawatt Ivanpah Solar Power Complex will be built in three phases – two 110 megawatt facilities and one 220 megawatt facility. The first phase (110 megawatts) is scheduled to begin construction in early 2010 and completed by 2012. The second phase will begin construction roughly six months after the start of the first phase in early 2010.
A 100 megawatt solar thermal plant utilizes approximately 50,000 heliostats.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Save a desert. Build coal-fired power plants instead.
Very interesting – the other great hope for solar power, Ausra, who in early interviews claimed they could power the total US 24/7, have abandoned electricity production after building a 15MW plant and are currently selling solar steam generation.
They call it good for the Earth, but just look at how much space that plant would’ve taken, space animals like bighorn sheep and condors need.
Here’s an idea BrightSource, put more money into getting ultra efficient solar panels to market, then generate your power in the urban areas instead of covering the whole desert with mirrors and displacing plant and animal life.
Just goes to show that there is a ulterior motive that is very difficutlt to regulate within green ideology. This ulterior ‘motive’ centres around control. If they cant accept alternative energy developments in the landscape that they don’t directly control, it shows the movement is not about bettering things for greater society, but about bettering things only for themselves.
So sad. The Luz solar generation facility near Barstow is (or was, not sure it is still operating) amazing, although it was never cost-effective without special tax incentives. They used to sponsor a science program at the Lewis Center for Education Research. I’d love to see something like this take hold in California.
Unfortunately, the anti-technology, anti-civilization faction is very powerful in this state, especially in the northern part. I think Southern Cal would seek to split the state if we didn’t need your water. 😉
It seem that when the enviors demand “sustainable power”, they really mean no power.
In fairness, it does not seem unreasonable to expect that this facility be placed on non conservation land. Why would anyone ever give conservation land again to the US if a new administration arbitrarily abrogates prior commitments for so little?
Let ’em shiver in the dark.
Adam from Kansas (19:54:12) :
You aren’t likely to find such large animals in that part of the Mojave Desert. There is very little water The jackrabbits and coyotes would have rested underneath the shade. Smaller rodents (mostly nocturnal) wouldn’t care, either.
In the 1980s and 1990s, a company called ARCOSolar tried to make photovoltaics efficient enough to be competitive with other energy generation methods. Using sunlight to produce steam just works better for large-scale projects. That said, I wish that California localities made it easier to get permits for installing solar cells on individual homes.
Yeah, I’m gonna have to agree with demisch on this one. They owned the land; they gave away the land on the promise that it would be protected. That sounds like a no-brainer to me. I mean, come on … we’re talking 2.5 miles per side for the solar plant (if it’s a square facility). I think there are probably one or two other places it could be built. California isn’t exactly small.
REPLY: size isn’t the issue, its the EIR – A
Two things –
Solar thermal power – as listed above – gobbles up lots of water.
In case you weren’t aware, water is a rather precious commodity in the desert. Facilities such as these usually utilize groundwater wells which may – read “almost certainly” – deplete groundwater resources and lower water tables. One quick read of the history of the Ogallala Aquifer should tell you about the history of pumping groundwater.
In addition, the desert may SEEM like a wasteland to city folk who don’t really give a crap about any environment that doesn’t have a Starbucks around the corner or a nice bluegrass lawn in suburbia, but desert environments are some of the most fragile of ecosystems. In addition to the threats to the rare natural springs that occur in deserts because of water withdrawals – roads, powerlines, and service areas must be constructed. Damage to thin topsoils and flora may take centuries to recover.
Most folks here probably don’t care much for Mary Austin, Edward Abbey, and Wallace Stegner – but all have conveyed in their works the beauty and magic of the desert. Anyone who has allowed him or herself time in the desert – quiet time on foot and far away from all distraction – knows that the desert is hardly a wasteland.
9 sq. miles out of the most worthless 25,000 sq miles in the country.
A couple of dozen rattlesnakes thank you.
I have a better idea. How about the Black Rock desert playa? There is no habitat to destroy. NOTHING lives there, not even a blade of grass. It gets wet in the winter there, but that can be worked around.
It is BLM land and should be available for that use for a reasonable, fee.
Roger McEvilly (19:55:37) : This ulterior ‘motive’ centres around control. If they cant accept alternative energy developments in the landscape that they don’t directly control, it shows the movement is not about bettering things for greater society, but about bettering things only for themselves.
Frankly, I think it is worse than that. I’ve known a fair number of rabid greens. It isn’t about a desire for explicit control, it is about achieving world perfection, as they see it.
They think the world ought to be perfect; and that perfection does not allow for things like real farms (only toy farms as seen in 1950’s TV). Farms ought to have a red barn, horses pulling wagons, no motor driven equipment and no chemicals (i.e. be very Amish, but without the pig slaughter and bacon making… and without the beef… they would be against dairy cows but they don’t understand that dairy cows means someone is eating veal…) The world ought to all run on solar cars and windmills. But without mining any copper or making any plastics or refining any iron or… to make said solar panels and windmills) and all development ought to only happen on despoiled urban land (never mind that they also want the despoiled urban land returned to nature…) and everything ought to be the same price as now, or lower if you are poor.
All food comes from the grocery store (preferably organic) and that does not need farms. All computers and cloths come from Macys or Saks and that does not require sweat shops or factories (or mining or other icky things). And a no-whip-lowfat-soy-latte does not require anyone in the tropics to pick coffee beans…
Everyone can work from home, and bike to the grocery store.
Mining is evil and ought to be banned.
Coal and oil are evil and ought to be banned.
Cars and trucks and trains are evil…
And making clothes in 3rd world countries at less than US minimum wage is evil and ought to be banned.
Everyone ought to be paid lots of money (“living wage”), and have all the food they want, free medical care, free education to any level, free clothing, and never need a car, and travel anywhere in the world using no fuel, and everyone ought to have a Masters or Ph.D. regardless of their native talent (it is racist and you must be a eugenics supporter to suggest that some folks are just not quite smart enough to earn a Ph.D …) and it will certainly not require anything using an engine or any chemicals of any kind or anyone to work in a factory making cloths or … It’s all about being self actualized, and how can anyone be self actualized in a cloths factory, anyway?…
And that is the problem.
Ask one of those folks where the stuff in the toilet goes when they flush. If they actually do have a clue about “sewer plants” ask them how it gets there… Ask them how the water gets into the faucet. Ask them what copper is used for, what materials go into a TV set (don’t bother with “how does it work”…) or even just ask “How do you grow food?” When they say “put seeds in the ground” ask about pest management, weed control, where do seeds come from, where do the parts we don’t eat go? Then ask “How does food get to you?” It is very very depressing…
The connection between what they use every day and how it gets to them is typically nonexistent. Yeah, there is the occasional “green engineer” who has a bit of a clue, but they typically “have other issues”.
Why do folks get sick? Because “your energies are out of balance”. Need medicines? Nope, just get your Chi adjusted right… Cat wants to eat the goldfish? Talk to him about his attitude…
NONE of these is a fiction. ALL of them comes from an actual interaction at some point in my past. Part of why I bailed out of the Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth affiliations I had. I could not stand the cool-aid… (Kept asking “What’s in this? Where did it come from?” 😉
So you see, it isn’t about need to control that land, it is more about the idea that we don’t really need that solar plant anyway. Just turn on the light switch and the lights come on. Why do you want to destroy that pristine desert when the switch works SOOO much better and cleaner…
No smiley.
No joke.
Sad?
yes
Inxwalt (20:35:37),
” You aren’t likely to find such large animals in that part of the Mojave Desert. There is very little water The jackrabbits and coyotes would have rested underneath the shade. Smaller rodents (mostly nocturnal) wouldn’t care, either.”
It would change the ecology, plants and animals would be more abundant,soil would be more moist. The dishes as you say would have provided shade and protection, there would be less evaporation from the soil leading to a richer more diverse plant community.The taller grass and shade from the dishes would provide protection for the animals from raptors, they would probably change their habits and be less nocturnal.Altogether the biota would be be more abundant but different and therein lies the problem for the ‘frozen in time’ environmentalists.
There are technical problems, like how do the dishes get cleaned? and remoteness from the transmission grid.
I don’t follow that. I may be dim.
But a solar powered steam plant recycles it’s water, it does not need to vent steam.
Beyond filling and the usual minor losses it shouldn’t need to use any water at all.
So where is the water usage problem?
Kindest Regards
These guys give Luddites a bad name.
While the “greens” demand that we transition to renewable energy with their mouths, in clear action they stand opposed to its development. Sadly, most applications to build solar power plants on file with the BLM here in Nevada are mired in environmental wrangling. Because of it, some time back the BLM placed a two year moratorium on accepting any new applications. That decision was eventually overturned by the state. In response, environmental groups vowed to force years of studies against applicants, making the building of most plants unlikely.
When you get past all of the debates over the harm solar plants will cause to the endangered desert tortoise, desert water usage issues, environmental hazards of salt spills, damage to cryptobiotic soils, stressing of desert flora, unsightliness, and the rest, there’s still one more bullet in the environmentalist’s renewable energy project killing guns…
…Energy Sprawl:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006802#pone-0006802-g004
Our present administration and the envirowackos overlook the “Tarzan principal.” You don’t let go of the vine that has carried you until you have the next vine firmly in grasp. They demand that industry let go of oil and natural gas under the fallacious belief that renewable energy is in our grasp. The outcome is quite predictable – it’s going to be a hard fall.
Dear Mr. Smith –
I live in rural Wyoming. Not only do I know the desert, I know people who drill wells for a lot of the natural gas that powers the California electric plants (since they don’t want any coal-generated electricity there) and people who raise the beef that goes into your steaks (probably not McBurgers since that stuff largely comes from cheaper foreign producers).
I have a dear friend who is in her 80s who has shot a bear and a mountain lion in the past two years – because these critters made the mistake of coming after her chickens. So, I think I know a thing or two about where eggs come from.
But, then again, why discuss ideas when ad hominem attacks are just so much more fun. eh?
I’ve got a better idea than any of you, and it’s not even a new one. Give up on the pipe dream of solar power until we get some kind of direct conversion breakthrough – but that could take 2 or 3 decades. Till then, we’ve got more natural gas in this country than we can use – if we would just develop all the fields we have (Including the MASSIVE gas fields in Alaska that are sitting there unused since we’ve never built a pipeline for it) then we could have cheap electricity everywhere in this country for the next 50 years, easy.
But noooo, that’s too easy, and it might benefit some of those nasty oil and gas companies. Can’t allow that.
John Egan (20:42:14) :
….In addition to the threats to the rare natural springs that occur in deserts because of water withdrawals – roads, powerlines, and service areas must be constructed. Damage to thin topsoils and flora may take centuries to recover……blah blah blah. I’m sorry John, but this kind of thinking is precisely the problem. The topsoils, flora, etc are NOT ultra sensitive and irreplaceable. Ever hear of the Law of Entropy? In the desert, that topsoil is whatever blew in over the last few years. I can intentionally bulldoze every weed in my yard (and did when I built) and ALL of them were back in the space of a few years. It actually sounds to me like the conservancy has a claim if the land was theirs to begin with, but the eco zealot fixation on every blade of grass or puddle of mud will be the destruction of this great country.
E.M, you nailed it except for one small point. It’s not sad, its sick.
This reminds me of another example of the radicals in the Administration and Congress, etc that are totally oblivious that our economy is highly dependent on energy. They think energy from US sources is bad (while they loan money to Brazil to develop their resources).
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5896UU20090910
“Stephen Brown, a fellow at the nonpartisan research group Resources for the Future, said eliminating the tax breaks would amount to less than one percent of the industry’s $3.4 trillion in estimated annual revenue for the period.” (Of course these costs will be passed along to the consumer)
“A small drop in U.S. oil consumption should help energy security, by cutting the exposure to oil price shocks, he said.” But the way they do it is to cut back US production!!
This reflects the administration agenda to strangling US oil and gas production regardless of consequences and propose the false claim that this US will strengthen energy security. really?? Is there anyone in the world who believes this? Less domestic resources= increased security!! The Administration will lie about anything and concock any story to sell it no matter how wild !!
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5896UU20090910
For some reason, the link did not post correctly. I’ll try one more time:
Study Titled “Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural Habitat for the United States of America”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0006802#pone-0006802-g004
a jones (21:07:13) :
The problem, as cited by environmentalists, is in the water required to clean the reflectors. In a large plant, it is claimed the amount would be a significant drain on desert water resources.