Why Environmentalists Oppose New Solar Power Plants

For the last few years Governor Schwarzenegger and the Big Solar Industry have been pushing to expedite the permit process for new solar power plants awaiting the greenlight in California’s Mojave desert. With federal lands all over the desert southwest open to large concentrated solar power (CSP) plants, private interests have been clamoring for a spot in line.
For all those involved, it is universally agreed that we need renewable energy outlets asap. So you’d figure that environmentalists would be right up front pushing for production along with their industry allies, but in actuality, it is the environmental sector that is holding things up. But why, why after all these years of promoting renewable power would the instigators themselves stand in the way of their vision becoming reality? Governor Schwarzenegger can’t seem to understand. Neither can Big Solar.
Fortunately, in a recent blog, the Desert Protective Council spelled out their sector’s staunch opposition. They assert that a solar power plant CAN have a negative impact on the local environment and, especially in the case of desert installations, may actually contribute to global warming. In short, here are the DPC’s points of opposition:
The desert is not deserted.
It supports a vast array of animal and plant life which is ignored in current building and excavation plans. As the DPC puts it, you don’t see forests being clear cut to make room for solar plants – that is considered ridiculous – so why “scrape” thousands of acres of desert land clean for the same goal?
Desert plant regeneration would be very slow.
A forest can regenerate over time but the delicate desert infrastructure is built up over many years (e.g., the Joshua tree). So the impact of scraping the desert could have a noticeable impact for several years.
Habitat destruction endangers threatened species.
Again, the desert succeeds through a subtle balance between plant and animal and environment. Direct, wide scale habitat destruction could prove fatal for some species and contradicts the very idea behind solar power in the first place.
The impact of this scraping of the desert landscape may reach far beyond plants and animals into the realm of global warming itself.
A study of the Mojave Desert concluded that it stored as much carbon dioxide as a temperate forest, both in sparse vegetation and the very top layer of biological crusts (algae, moss, lichen). To scrape this landscape could then actually negate much of the savings incurred by using solar power in the first place.
CSP plants also use vast amounts of water each year in a process called “wet-cooling.”
We’re talking in the 600-700 million gallon range for a 280 megawatt plant. The big question: Where will this water come from?
Transmission is another big issue.
Many of the proposed sites and available lands are far from any transmission lines, further adding to the cost and impact of the construction process. Big Solar companies have been unfriendly placing plants closer to transmission lines because that land is not public and therefore not free to lease.The problem, the DPC and other environmentalists say, is that all of these points should be reviewed prior to any construction. Instead the governments of the region, specifically California, are attempting to lessen environmental review because these projects are perceived as innately green.
The DPC is not without solutions. In fact, considering that I have long agreed with similar suggestions, you can take the scary environmental possibilities of CSP as another sign that Big Solar is the wrong way to go. We already have an overburdened, archaic transmission system with deregulated utilities shipping electricity to distant states for the highest bidder. So why not use the millions of empty rooftops across the desert region and the country? This eliminates the need for new transmission lines, would actually ease the load on existing lines, and protect consumers from black-outs and other grid failures.
Other reasons to go rooftop PV over desert CSP include public utilities being eligible for federal rebates in ’09, which could actually make PV cheaper than CSP. Along those same lines, a feed-in tariff would certainly get things going as well. Solar is appealing when you can save money on bills, but if you could actually make money? There is no better incentive under a monetary system.
I highly recommend reading the full article from the Desert Protective Council. Also check out the LA Times article that was the inspiration for the DPC blog.
Posted on December 30th in Solar Politics by Dan.



December 30th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Thanks for the great summary of our blog post. Feed-In Tariffs are the way to go, and all cities should be adopting the AB 811 financing mechanisms.
If solar is going to happen in desert areas, it should be only after we’ve fully explored all the other better solutions such as energy efficiency, conservation, and urban rooftop solar. Then it should only be done on previously disturbed desert areas, such as abandoned farm land. But this isn’t the way things are preceding. Big companies such as Bright Source prefer to build on pristine lands far from transmission lines, because they and the utilities reap a greater profit this way.
You might also be interested in the website http://www.allianceforresponsibleenergypolicy.com/ .
February 11th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
At some level, we all need to chose our battles.
Thousands of acres of solar installed on state land for next to no cost to the operator.. that would be a raw deal for just about everyone else. Hundreds of acres of solar on private land? thats another issue. Many location issues are taken care of when transmission is considered – transmission infrastructure is expensive, and any installation that is realistically considered will be near *existing* infrastructure – not in untouched wilderness. PV on buildings is great, and cost effective to have production at the demand, but concentrated solar is more efficient and is best done on a large scale.
If it becomes easier and cheaper to just build another natural gas power plant; utilities will happily proceed down the road well traveled.
February 12th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Concentrated solar does work best on a large scale and is more efficient, but is it any more practical than distributed generation? Even large solar plants right next to transmission lines would stress our current energy grid, which has effectually been left to rot for much of the last thirty years; while politicians and businessmen changed electricity from a service to a commodity. Maintenance and improvement of the electrical grid is not a moneymaking venture and therefore not of much value to the corporate model. That is why under deregulation we have seen the nation’s infrastructure take a scary plunge. Just look at the effect of a typical winter storm in the east and midwest nowadays.
Distributed generation would give both the nation AND the individual household more energy independence: a big selling point behind solar throughout its history. So while utility-scale solar generation has its benefits, it is also important to remember, and not to limit, solar energy’s potential. Rooftop solar, energy conservation and efficiency just seem to be the better overall approach to me. And something that would give the average consumer a bit more power; a big deal during these economic struggles.
August 6th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
[...] Big Solar wants a fast-track to solar development on federal lands, while local governments and environmental groups are hesitant to allow plans to go forth without preset regulation, or at least environmental impact [...]
September 1st, 2010 at 7:00 am
[...] the complex permitting process since 2008. This and many other projects have been hampered by environmental concerns as to their impact on the local environment, including wildlife habitat and water [...]