Energy has long been a source of contention in the United States. With the struggle to drill enough inexpensive oil for power, industry and transportation, energy alternatives are crucial. Solar power is a renewable, “clean” energy alternative for the generation of electricity. Recently, proposals for the first ever large scale solar power plants to be built on federal property were approved by the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on October 5th 2010. This move supports the Obama administration’s resolution to promote renewable energy alternatives. The solar plants will be located in Southern California in Imperial Valley and in Lucerne Valley.
The Imperial Valley plant would have the ability to provide enough energy to power between 212,700 - 531,750 homes and the Lucerne Valley plant would have the ability to power between 13,500 – 33,750 homes. The plants are part of CA’s attempt to comply with a state mandate to have 33% of their energy provided by renewable sources by 2020. Imperial Valley’s solar plant, powered by Tessera Solar is a 709 megawatt project and Lucerne Valley’s solar plant, proposed by Chevron Energy is a 45 megawatt project. The project, although approved, will require a lot of work due to its remote location in the desert. Transmission lines for the power generated by these plants are few and more will need to be made. The projects have been carefully structured in order to comply with EPA regulations and standards and were re-modified to comply with public objections. These changes included minimal water usage at the plant, a smaller carbon footprint, and a greater commitment to preserving the threatened desert tortoise, which lives in the proposed area.
Opinions are divided over the solar energy plant projects.
The fact that a threatened species resides on the land that the power plants are being built upon has caused environmental activists and groups to argue against them. Concerns are being raised for the desert tortoise, a threatened species which resides in the desert area of Southern California and the flat-tailed horned lizard and the bighorn sheep. The Sierra Club has also raised concerns on the subject of the desert tortoise, desiring the projects to be relocated to areas that are not "critical habitats" for the species.Personally, I feel that while the complaints are valid, the plants do not harm seriously harm human health and are being built for a good purpose. The National Environmental Policy Act review process is thorough and severe. NEPA is required when projects are proposed on federal land. Therefore, in order for these projects to be approved, they had to be scrutinized by NEPA. Once these projects are proposed, they had to be reviewed. The projects had an Environmental Impact Statement composed on each and the proposals were released for public commentary. The projects were approved, even though it was known that the tortoise’s habitat was part of the federal land in question. All land will be associated with an endangered or threatened species in some way. A line must be drawn. The world is spiraling into an energy crisis and sacrifices must be made. At least in regards to these projects, the energy plants are renewable and do not destroy lands the way that mountain top removal does. The process strips away forest and uses explosives to carve up 800 ft deep into the earth. Layer upon layer is stripped away from the mountain as machinery digs into the mountain to reach and collect coal. The mountain top removal process generates massive amounts of both solid and liquid waste. The liquid waste is extremely toxic to the environment and frequently contaminates water sources. Which is better? Generating energy through mountain top removal’s coal or from solar power plants on federal land with the combined ability to generate enough electricity for as many as 566,000 homes?
It seems that a lot of times an environmental solution to one problem may cause another apparently unrelated one. I think that people will always have differing opinions on policy issues and its just necessary to see where there is a greater benefit not only to humans, but the world as a whole. It is ironic that the goal of building solar plants is to negate global warming and reduce the loss of species biodiversity when the construction of such a solution could cause the extinction of a unique species. However, it is refreshing to see steps being made in the right direction towards alternative energy sources. It might cause less environmental stress to one dense area if instead of building a mass area of solar panels, commercial/residential areas were given incentives or subsidies for rooftop panels and a grid system to distribute power over a greater area.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your comment, I feel that perhaps a combination should be implemented. There should be both areas containing large amounts of solar panels like those proposed in my blog and commercial/residential usage of solar panels. Personally I feel that a combination of both tactics is a better alternative. You also mentioned the possibility of incentives to encourage solar power. Currently the United States government offers up to 30% the amount of the cost to implement residential solar panels in tax credit as long as the panels provide electricity and comply with fire and electrical codes. Solar water heating is also offered a similar 30% tax credit should the panels comply with regulations.
ReplyDelete