.jpg)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein talks to reporters
AP Photo/Harry Hamburg
The battle between those who want to set up solar power plants and wind turbines versus those who want to leave the vast desert pristine is heating up, and it’s U S Senator Dianne Feinstein who has turned up the heat.
Or at least that’s the way it’s portrayed in the media. Desert Vistas vs Solar Power says the New York Times
Feinstein Seeks To Block Solar Power From California Desert Land says Huffingtonpost.com.
At the center of the controversy is 500,000 acres of land and 19 (count ‘em) eager energy developers.
Here's what Feinstein herself has said. She describes the measure as designating new desert conservation lands; streamline and improve permitting process for large-scale wind and solar development on suitable desert lands; and enhance recreational opportunities.
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the author of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act, today introduced a comprehensive bill to designate new lands in the Mojave Desert for conservation, enhance recreational opportunities, and streamline and improve the federal permitting process to advance large-scale wind and solar development on suitable lands. The carefully crafted legislation, titled the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, is the product of discussions with key stakeholders in Southern California.
The bill builds upon the legacy of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act – sponsored by Senator Feinstein – which protected more than 7 million acres of pristine desert in Southern California, and established Death Valley National Park, Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave National Preserve.
“Earlier this year, I learned that Bureau of Land Management had accepted numerous applications to build vast solar and wind energy projects on former railroad lands previously owned by the Catellus Corporation that had been donated to the federal government or acquired with taxpayer funds for conservation.
I believe the development of these new cleaner energy sources is vital to addressing climate change, yet we must be careful about selecting where these facilities are located."
The summary of the bill follows including a description of the lands that would be sheltered.
Two new National Monuments would be created. The Mojave Trails National Monument would protect approximately 941,000 acres of federal land, including approximately 266,000 acres of the former railroad lands along historic Route 66. The Sand to Snow National Monument would encompass 134,000 acres of land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley up to the top of Mount San Gorgonio, the highest peak in Southern California. Plus, just under 100,000 acres of land added to existing National Monuments: Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Park and the Mojave National Preserve. Plus, five new wilderness areas for another quarter million acres.
About 1.4 million acres in total, and an impressive vision of preserving desert vistas.
Now, on to the renewable energy side of the legislation. It establishes offices to study, and institutes a “use it or lose it” approach to replace the current “first come-first serve” practice. (Source: http://feinstein.senate.gov/)
And from:http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public we find that the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 permits the construction of transmission lines to facilitate the transfer of renewable energy generated in the California desert and adjacent states. And provides solar energy companies with potential projects currently proposed inside the monument boundaries to relocate to federal solar energy zones being developed by the Department of the Interior.
The concept seems popular. A new federal program to identify lands that are best suited for solar-power projects is being hailed by environmentalists and industry observers as an unprecedented effort to ensure renewable energy projects are developed in a way that protects unspoiled landscapes and wildlife habitat, writes Scott Streater on July 9, 2009 for the New York Times.
But then he notes: some environmental groups are voicing concerns that some of the 24 solar study zones, if developed, would wipe out habitat for federally protected species.
Moreover some of the suggested locations seem to be smack dab in the 1.4 million would-be protected acres. According to the federal maps, more than half of all the proposed study areas -- 351,049 acres -- are in California's Mojave Desert region.
Sad to say, but it does seem like a NIMBY situation for solar power. Yes, we want it, need it, must have it. But not there! No, that's not a good place either.
But how many of these folks actually live in a desert? Wait, of course, people don’t live in deserts. They terraform them, making them habitable. Why? Because deserts are vast inhospitable places. I live in a desert, a lovely terraformed desert in New Mexico. I drive across the "natural" desert when traveling through Arizona, and Nevada. Even through California.
The reality of a desert is that you don’t hike through them for hours, unless you’re dragging lots of water with you. Even when driving you check your gas first to make sure you don’t break down in the middle. And for every gorgeous vista, there are countless miles of scrubby trees and brush.
From what is the land being protected? It isn’t in danger of being terraformed, or becoming a new residential housing development. It’s in danger of being used to create clean, renewable energy.
And if solar panels upset people, running out of fossil fuel should upset them even more.
And what happened to wind farms? Are they being shut out? And why?
Surely we can spare some land for solar plants, and wind turbines, even in the middle of the desert. Because, where else would we put solar plants?
What do you think?
Comments
rich people tend to protect and conserve land... cuz they already have theirs.
instead of saying no to development.... she should work harder to make development sustainable.
Having written an article on this same subject for OnEarth magazine yesterday, I was glad to see a similar opening in yours. Alas, we come to different conclusions. Wilderness is important biologically, even when most people don't admire the view. (I happen to; I also hike for hours in the desert as do lots of other nuts.) It's a bit glib to charge NIMBYism in this case. After all, the Mojave isn't in Sen. Feinstein's back yard. Why assign ulterior motives to her defense of desert lands - a cause she's supported for decades? There are plenty of places in the desert that ARE appropriate for utility-scale solar: why not place them on abandoned mine sites (they already have transmission lines), abandoned and formerly irrigated farms? Besides, a lot of the electrical power could come from solar panels on rooftops. Now, there's wasted space! We can use solar power without sacrificing more wilderness and the life it supports.
solar pv is NOT green by the way there made.
it takes 1500° Centigrade to fuse the quartz to make the silicon ingots.
Large scale solar like nellis afb is a cash cow.
thay spent $100m to save $1m a year. buy the way the panels last about 20 or so years.labor to run it not included.
any way, open land is important, farm land irreplaceable.
is our power needs more valuable?
Thank you all for your thoughtful replies.
Does anyone have a comment on wind power? That seems to be part of the issue and yet discussion seems to focus on solar.
Wind turbines, anyone?
This issue is about putting solar development (and other renewable energy development) in the RIGHT places. Like Osha Gray Davidson says above: There is plenty of land in the so. cal region that it can go, like abandoned farm lands, mine sites, and most importantly, on commercial rooftops! Also, what about solar panels over parking lots and then over highways?? The cost of solar PV WILL go down, and then these dinosaur large scale solar thermal farms will be obsolete, and that land will be lost forever. This monument proposal is to alleviate the effects of this. I completely support the senator's proposal for these monuments and hope the bill gets approved. GO solar, and GO enviros!
winwin says:
"There is plenty of land in the so. cal region that it can go, like abandoned farm lands, mine sites, and most importantly, on commercial rooftops!"
if the above isnt NIMBY then it's "Put It In Someone Else's Backyard".
Gather energy near where you use it to avoid both the loss of natural habitats and the energy losses due to transmission.
Much to do about nothing. Solar thermal power plants typically require 1/4 to 1 square mile or more of land. If 20 plants are constructed, then the total footprint would be 20 sq miles would be needed. Twenty sq miles is 4 miles by 5 miles. BUT, why do we need to build these mega projects when there isn't any energy shortage and conventional existing fossil plants can be retro fitted with solar to reduce fossil fuel consumption and carbon emission. Could it be the millions of dollars that will be made from these projects?
Robert Emery
Former Project Manager
Luz SEGS III, IV & V
Extent of Mojave Desert a survey made by the USGS which covers 25,000 square miles
Extent of Mojave Desert a survey made by the USGS which covers 25,000 square miles
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Desert
Deputy environment minister Astrid Klug said there were now 250,000 jobs in Germany's renewable energies sector and an overall total of 1.8 million in environmental protection. The number of jobs in renewables will triple by 2020 and hit 900,000 by 2030.
reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51N2F920090224
Enron CEO Ken Lay mocked the efforts by the California State government to thwart the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." according to the statements made by Freeman to the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
Going green in the Mojave desert
"But how many of these folks actually live in a desert? Wait, of course, people don’t live in deserts. They terraform them, making them habitable. Why? Because deserts are vast inhospitable places. I live in a desert, a lovely terraformed desert in New Mexico. I drive across the "natural" desert when traveling through Arizona, and Nevada. Even through California."
My God that has to be the dumbest push for renewable energy I have seen yet. MILLIONS of people live in the desert! What kind of people wrtie this retarded nonsense?
Kevin, people don't live in actual deserts. They live in places of limited water that they then try to landscape into a more lush greenery.
That's why places run out of water. You think Las Vegas is a desert? No. It's been terraformed into green space. Drive through a natural desert - try Boron in California for example.
Then we'll talk about living in a desert.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!