Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
A tortoise shell lies on the desert floor south of Primm, where a solar power plant is expected to be built on 3,400 acres.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
Sun Archives
Sun Coverage
Some environmentalists are breaking ranks and fighting the solar industry.
The problem, as they see it, is that tens of thousands of acres of mostly pristine desert is slated for bulldozing to accommodate utility-scale solar power plants in Nevada and across the Southwest.
The solar plant planned 4.5 miles southwest of the Primm Golf Course, for example, will eat up about 3,400 acres. About 20 people hiked across several miles of that desert Saturday.
They’re members of the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Western Watersheds Project, and Basin and Range Watch, but last weekend they were acting independently of their organizations. The hike was a form of protest. The mission was to gather information about rare and endangered plants and animals that live on the proposed site of the solar plant. The hikers’ plan is to use their knowledge of life on the site to block the development or at least force it to move.
Renewable energy developers have long been the darlings of environmental groups, but Saturday’s event highlights a growing rift within those groups. It’s not that the dissenters are anti-solar or anti-wind power. They simply want it to come in a form known as “distributed generation,” meaning rooftop solar panels and backyard wind turbines instead of massive new power plants and new transmission lines.
“I don’t understand why so much emphasis has to be put on these gigantic projects that are taking up wild open space,” hiker Laura Cunningham of Beatty says. “Reducing electricity consumption even a tiny bit and deploying urban technologies like rooftop solar first, before we start bringing out the bulldozers, would be better for everyone.”
Distributed generation requires no wilderness bulldozing, kills no animals and requires no massive infrastructure changes. It also has a smaller carbon footprint, according to RA Energie founder Herve Mazzocco, who has worked on renewable energy projects large and small.
Large utility-scale projects have larger carbon footprints for a number of reasons, he says. They tend to be built in remote locations and have to be huge in part because some of the electricity they generate is lost as the power is transported hundreds of miles along transmission lines. Adding to the carbon tally: Components are shipped from halfway around the world, and bulldozers and other equipment used to develop the land are polluters.
“Distributed generation systems can still be designed so the solar production coincides with the peak demand, which will save the utilities from running carbon intensive peak plants, there are no transmission losses as the energy is used on-site and, perhaps more significantly, there is no need for long environmental review processes, which means jobs right now, not in a year,” Mazzocco says.
A new workforce would be needed to manufacture and install the technology.
The government is pouring gargantuan subsidies into utility-scale renewable energy development. If it were to put that same kind of support into programs to help homeowners buy wholesale-cost solar panels and backyard wind turbines, it would preserve land and save tax dollars. Residents wouldn’t have to pay the added expense of funding huge renewable energy plants through increased electricity rates, advocates say.
But some say this corner of the renewable energy industry has been overlooked by the feds and state governments in favor of flashier utility-scale projects pushed by high-priced lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors. The projects also make great backdrops for news conferences.
Groups such as Sierra Club are strong supporters of renewable energy development because of its potential to reduce carbon emissions. But many members of these groups are appalled at how the technology is being rolled out. If large plants must be built, why not build them on previously disturbed land such as capped landfills or in pockets of undeveloped land in the urban core, they ask.
They argue cities such as Las Vegas that developed in a hopscotch manner could actually benefit from solar plants infilling undeveloped areas surrounded by suburban sprawl.
“We just think it’s happening too fast,” Cunningham says. “There has been no planning from the government on where renewable energy should be built and how fast. There has been no discussion of how to balance the need for carbon-free electricity with massive environmental damage.”
Cunningham and fellow hikers say the Ivanpah Solar Field planned for just over the California state line south of Primm is a prime example.
The project is expected to be the first mega solar plant in the U.S. It was the first solar project to receive approval for a federally backed loan guarantee through the Energy Policy Act.
The Ivanpah array will be Oakland, Calif.-based BrightSource Energy’s first American plant. The company has several other projects planned, including one in the Coyote Springs development north of Las Vegas.
Construction on the Ivanpah project is expected to begin this year. It will employ about 1,000 union workers, most likely from nearby Primm and Las Vegas, at the height of construction.
The site is far from pristine, the developer says. It is crisscrossed with transmission lines and off-road vehicle trails.
As for the concerns that it will kill rare plants and destroy critical habitat of endangered desert tortoises, BrightSource says it will uproot many of the most important plants — which include ancient colonies of creosote bushes and centuries-old barrel cactuses as well as rare wildflowers and even invasive grasses — and either transplant them or keep them in a nursery for the estimated 30-year lease of the BLM acreage.
Desert tortoises would be moved. One in every six tortoises moved would die, according to the environmental impact statement.
The company has responded to government and private concerns about the location by downscaling to avoid the most sensitive areas.
Some environmentalists say it’s a decent solution for this site but fear it sets a dangerous precedent in the deserts of Southern Nevada and California, some of which have far more sensitive habitat than the BrightSource site, explains Kevin Emmerich, another Beatty resident and member of Basin and Range Watch.
So he and his fellow hikers were looking for Native American artifacts, counting endangered species and looking for engineering flaws in the project’s flood and fire mitigation plans to try to slow the process and convince the powers that be to take a different approach to the country’s clean energy future.
Now, solar energy is bad? So-called "environmentalists" advocate the survival of every species other than humans. How is it they have any credibility whatsoever?
why cant they have solar panels on every roof? after all the whole of vegas has roofs and even over car parking areas.... so much space that could be used without having to transport the power generated miles...
" If large plants must be built, why not build them on previously disturbed land such as capped landfills or in pockets of undeveloped land in the urban core. "
The approach to the construction of this or any large scale project must be done in harmony with the eco system. Proper study and evaluation of any proposed sight MUST be given equal weight before the project breaks ground. There are sectors closer to developed areas which can be considered, and would pose no threat to sensitive preserves.
The house idea is a good one... king O pays to have it installed and wired to the house and to the power grid.... if you kill a Pigeon it is just a flying rat anyways (GOOD IDEA MARKP)
The atmosphere is bulldozed by billions of tons of CO2 all the time, who is asking that question.
Only simple minds do not understand the trade-off between burning coal, oil and gas versus putting mirrors into the deserts.
Do not get me wrong, but your, yes all our grand and great grand children will be very thankful for those pioneers in the deserts and for you, those who were willing to see the advantages.
I don't want my kids to have to build an ark to surivive the consequences of our lifestyle ... we have to do something.
So please think, we have no time to loose ... and remember the beauty of the sea of mirrors in the deserts, our children will praise one day as the beginning of a better world.
> why cant they have solar panels on every roof
Heat can be stored a lot easier that electricity so the power can be dispatched when needed, photovoltaics (PV) are 5-10 times more expensive, PV need much longer to return the energy needed for their fabrication and installation. If a the sky is one day cloudy there is no alternative source to produce power, in contrast this plant has a heat storage, and if there is longer cover gas can be burned to keep the very same turbine spinning ...
> previously disturbed land
Be concrete, tell where this disturbed land is and we all shall build another clean plant there ...
Actions speak louder than word!
I think every place that is suitable shall be considered, ...
As far as I can tell this one certainly is. I have faith in people trying to change for the better!
I bet they planted the shell in the photo. The solar plant is a bad idea, not because it will generate power and take up a lot of land. It will suck the money even faster because it will not turn a profit without taxpayer subsidies. I for one do not like to pay twice for a product. This will be a busted enterprise like the ethanol plants in the Midwest.
Why are we allowing this to be built in CA? Nevadans should be screaming to get this thing within our borders.
I've been all over the state of Nevada and I love it all. But, there's got to be an uglier place to build than this.
As for already disturbed land, how about the land surrounding and including the now-defunct jean prison?
Can't put solar on every roof because it's extremely expensive and inefficient.
Humans survive very well, especially American humans, that use 25% of the world's resource. Humans don't need any protection.
> Why are we allowing this to be built in CA?
Because CA has this great spirit of taking the lead and seeing where future begins !
California is lucky to have this resource and the ability to do somethig ...
Try to take part, inform yourself ...
These are the right spots to do this ... http://www.nrel.gov/csp/maps.html#south
Yes, the tortoise shell looks like a plant.
Expensive, unreliable alternative energy demands a huge land footprint.
Hopefully "the children" will thank us for their lower standard of living.
There's big money to be made in building it, and then operating the facility.
> Expensive, unreliable alternative energy demands a huge land footprint.
Hi Rusty, why so skeptical, these things run successfully since the 80ies as Parabolic Through Palnts, Bright Source is taking some risk to develop new technologies. They might fail yes, but their spirit ist right!
Look at what Solar Millennium is doing, the majority being built is using prooven technology such as parabolic through and takes no risk.
And remember each gallon of Oil and Gas burned is subsidising the Arab world and Russia via high Gas and Oil prices ...
Why not make your own energy and keep the money in your community ...
I bet the subsity will defenitly pay off after a few yers
I bet the subsidy will definitely, pay off after a few years ...
Let them build it, we need the work. It's a desert it's made for something like this. Go fight something else guys, we need the #@#@% work!!!!!!
I would be on your side for whales, trees but come on!
It will be a tourist attraction same as Hoover Dam. Just bulldoze them too! lol
As far as I know the tortoise shell was not a 'plant' -- none of the hikers had it with them when we hiked in.
I agree, we should develop our own resources instead of importing from the arab world. It would help with our infernal deficit-spending.
I'm all for alternative energy at market rates.
May this tortoise have survived in the shade of a mirror?
Someone ever asked this question?
I would believe that animals would move back into the area as soon as the plant is ready ...
But even if not there remains the vast majority of the desert untouched, ...
Hi Rusty,
The catch here is you have to start like that to make "alternative energy at market rates" a reality.
And don't get me wrong, burining of fossile fuels is also not at market rates it is subsidized and externalises it's damage costs on future generations and the rest of the planet.
To deposit a ton of CO2 in the atmosphere one should have to pay ...
Either way, beleive me solar thermal power plants are the best way forward we have and it will succeed !
Enviro wack-jobs! This is classic!
They scream in wild-eyed fashion:
"NO Nukes" !!!
"No Coal fired plants"!!!
"No Nat-Gaz pipelines"!!!
"No drilling"
Now this takes the cake....NO SOLAR...NO WIND TOWERS !!!!
After the protest, the enviro-posse piles into an SUV, drives down to the local Starbucks where they can cool off with the AC and order huge molten-cups of self-medicating caffene. Then fire-up their laptops and save the world.
WITHOUT a clue as to how that is all possible and where the energy comes from.
Hippies vs Hippies............ I love it!!!
Kudos to Stephanie!
Responding to the comments under article:
Actually, rooftop panels store energy into batteries. You can actually run power all night with roof top.
Ivanpah can not store heat. Molten salt can, but only for about three to four hours and Ivanaph has no heat storage. Different design.
Tortoises do not need solar heliostat mirrors for shade, that's why they burrow under the ground.
Desert are living carbon sinks. C02 is stored in fragile, old ecosystems. Removing these systems will be counter productive to fighting climate change. There are far better ways to produce clean energy.
Ivanpah will be a tragic waste of habitat and tax dollars.
Also, the Center for Biological Diversity is not an enviromental group....it's a law firm.
Environmentalists want us living in caves or dead.
"To deposit a ton of CO2 in the atmosphere one should have to pay ..."
No, they shouldn't. We are actually in a CO2 famine. The harmful effects of carbon have been greatly exaggerated.
There are plenty of places which are already highly disturbed to place these solar installations. And I like the idea of distributed generation. In case of catastrophic events, having people more self-sufficient, energy-wise, makes a lot more sense. Do we really all want to continue to rely on these large grids, which could easily fail us when a large earthquake or other disruption hits?
The investors in that project are: Drum roll please: Google , NVEnergy and Israeli investors and now Bechtel.
My employer at the time lost that job even after being low bidder and should have won. But Bechtel put up 50 -60 million dollars to buy into that project. The low bidder did not have that kind of capitol to compete. So the low bidder lost. But wait there's more. Since the California environmental laws are so strict they could not start the project. So they tied up construction with environmental issues. Meanwhile.... since CA bottle necked/stopped the project. They have devised a plan to use a service road on the Nevada side of the stateline to get to the project site to start it up. Since Nevada's environmental laws are easier to push through. California has basically tied it up in environmental issues. I saw a printout of the environmental study document of the access road on the Nevada side sitting by the printer. This was for the backdoor access road to the project site from Nevada. This was within the last two months. I did sodar and air monitoring met tower data collection for that area in 2003, 2004 and the systems were always breaking down.. So any air quality and sodar readings associated with that area are probably not accurate and reliable readings. There was also a law suit involved with that air monitoring project that was located behind the canyon and gas compressor station before you get to Good Springs. Due to faulty monitoring equipment and inconsistent data sampling.
Just confirmed with our photographer Justin the circumstances of the tortoise shell photo.
He discovered it while hiking (alone) back to his car while the rest of the group (including myself) continued in the opposite direction towards a small hill.
Tortoises (and other animals) die in the desert all the time, for a variety of reasons. Justin should be praised for taking a beautiful and visually striking photo of something he stumbled upon that happened to illustrate the story beautifully.
"Tortoises (and other animals) die in the desert all the time, for a variety of reasons"
Wow....what a profound statement! That's why I always laugh at all the people trying to stop these or other projects. It's not as if all the creatures will live in peace and harmony forever if the land is never disturbed.
The bottom line is these groups are against ANYTYPE of development anywhere, period.
PS.....that is an excellent photo!
more utility-scale energy to continue chasing our tail in an endless attempt to satiate ever increasing energy consumption, fuel unwise/unsustainable/unplanned growth, and feed the power of foreign energy companies who consolidate our money, outsource our labor for manufacturing, and hold disproportionate influence over energy rates which, more than any other commodity, are determinative of the economic vitality of our local communities.
why should the availability and price of energy be controlled and produced in the enron model of wasteful, remote, centralized control serving an abstract - cooked-book quarterly profit report to facilitate the needs of investors in NY over the well-being of the local communities whose economic vitality is entirely dependent on that very per kW/hour rate that the fat-cats manipulate to maximize profit ?
Conserve the energy we're already producing. Distribute the production of energy on already disturbed real-estate (roof-tops, parking lots, marginal agricultural land, etc.) and put the work, the money, and the determinative power of economic security that accompanies energy development back into the hands of the local communities for which the energy will serve.
not one more acre of public land (that belongs to all of us - and perhaps more importantly, a trust that belongs to our children) destroyed to line the pockets of Wall-Street.
The promise of renewable energy has as much to do with its distributive potential, to put the power back into the hands of individuals or localized communities to facilitate localized economic security which hedges communities and people against the economic volatility of remote investor manipulated centralized energy markets (see: Enron w/ Californa Blackouts) - it's about growing our own clean kW's as much as it's about fossil fuel mitigation.
centralized "renewable" energy as a utility-scale commodity is a scam.
Thanks to those commentators who have done some research before popping off with euphemistic ideas. yes, we need to protect our environment. I'm tired of hearing "they were here first" from some of these groups (unless your a wild horse advocate then it's "well, there here now so we should take care of them"). Our eco-management must include the needs of the fast growing human race and their future. Environmental restictions must not become so large as to the exclusion of other needs. Much study has been done prior to the BrightSource approval by the Gov't.including environmental studies submitted by concerned groups and agencies. By the way,two friends of mine have gone the route of making their homes energy self sustaining (as I hope to accomplish some day as I can afford it). Their cost so far has averaged $30,000. Do you really think that the gov't can subsidize you with that much? or would it be more economical to build a large power center. Some simple numbers for you to work with. Go into any store selling solar cells. the average price is about $300 for a unit that puts out 40 watts, enough to run a 40 watt light bulb, do the math. Or, why is it more economical to build apartments that house more residents on less land space than single family homes? There is always a special interest group complaining about some thing with out informing the public about the advantages or cost of the alternatives. Put a wind turbine in your back yard? Go stand next to one and see if you can handle it.But if these special interest groups force you.You can always join the group in upscale Palm Springs. their objection to the wind farm there is that it's "eye pollution".
Photovoltaic panels weigh 30-40 lbs for a 2' x 4' panel not including the necessary steel racks needed to support and aim. This would add maybe 6 lbs per sf dead load to the roof by the time it's done. Most roofs I would guess have a low load rating here of 15-20 lbs per sf because of no snow. Sure it would would but cutting it close IMO.
Besides how many 2' x 4' panels can you fit on one side of an average house roof? Panels have an output of 60-200 watts each. The price is between about $100 for the lower wattage - $500 for higher output for the panel only. A coffee maker (1500 watt) would need 8-25 panels to power it under ideal conditions. It will cost you many many thousands to save pennies per hour on your electric bill.
Maybe some day but right now it does not make since to install panels on your house.
If some companies want to build fields of these somewhere so be it. We need the work. Better then buying oil from overseas.
as soon as the enviro-wackos get their way and legislate roof top solar panels,they will find out about the massive amount of hazardous waste created in the production of solar panels, and freak out.it is time for the vocal minorities to go away, and let the majority of the people decide these issues.go nuclear,go gas,go solar!
Ivanpah has just received 1.3 billion dollars of tax money as a "loan guarantee", but there is a major question of weather or not this system can even function. They are going to place hundreds of thousands of heliostats (mirror reflectors) in the ground and they are just going to pound them in the ground like they are garden stakes.(after scraping up all the desert habitat) The project would be built entirely on an alluvial fan. Alluvium means "water transported material". When people say "it never rains out there" they are only partially correct. When it does rain, that alluvial fan moves. Rain it the desert means business as people in Vegas know. When the fan moves beyond their inefficient flood control plans, so will the heliostat reflectors. How long will the solar plant be offline when they have to set everything back up and repair things? There is far more water involved with flooding than the 100 year flood scenario they are planning for.
In fact, there are many who believe that this plan was dead in the water from the beginning. What happens if BrightSource goes broke? You and I get to save them with our tax money! This is the perfect plan for BrightSource.
If all the stimulus went into rooftop photovoltaics, the price would have gone way down. These guys who are attempting to call rooftop inefficient are ignoring the fact that BrightSource will need federal subsidies throughout its entire lifespan to produce 100 megawatts. They will never even get close to 300 to 400 megawatts they are promising, but the rate payers in California will make up for the inefficiency. I don't believe that our lawmakers ever wanted us to produce our own energy.
Why would anyone assume a tortoise shell in the middle of the desert was planted? That is so stupid. I go out in the desert maybe twice a year and I have seen many tortoise shells, along with a lot of other gross animal carcasses, and plenty of live ones too. What do you think happens when they die? They come to the city?
LVS STAFF: The tortoise-shell photo is much like the photo LVS published using a padlock and chain to highlight one of the Lake Las Vegas articles. This kind of digital-sensationalism should be left to Earth Liberation Front pamphlets and the wacko-enviro-bloggers. The image is not accurate to the article nor the science and the use is pure propaganda by definition.
Sigh, if the Federal government hand never built Hoover Dam we wouldn't have this problem ;)
Anyway, how about a nuclear power plant instead? That would only take up about 25 acres, maybe less.
Come on now. The environmentalists are mad because solar "green technology" will mess up their "pristine" desert areas. Is the crack pipe still warm? Does anything satisfy these environment wackos?
Imagine the hissy fit they will throw if that damn high speed rail ever starts getting built through the desert.
Think about human progress and how little innovation we would have if the environmentalists had their way a hundred years ago...
I agree, that tortise shell was placed there.
So many comments, so little truth. I am working at a PV plant right now. It is Cad/Tel thin film PV, it is cheaper than COAL, now. Not in the future, but now. The efficiencies are going up and the price per watt is going down for this technology, so it will cost much less very soon. The technology is First Solar's, they are the biggest PV manufacturer in the world, check out their website at FirstSolar.com.
Why are people who believe the intelligent management of the Earth's Resources, i.e our life support system...called wackos?
I guess these people don't care if you piss in their living rooms? or poop on their feet?
First Solar is an investor's money pit. Be real careful with them. Plus, they also want to cover thousands of acres od desert with photovoltaic panels when they could be putting those panels on all the roof tops in SoCal!Talk about a senseless project. Google First Solar to see what problems THEY are having!
This info comes from the E and E news:
SOLAR: Investors wary despite booming utility-scale investments(03/22/2010)
Joel Kirkland, E&E reporter...
"First Solar, the Arizona-based darling of the U.S. solar business, has also seen its stock decline since December as wary investors express concern about whether sales will net $2.9 billion in 2010 as projected by CEO Robert Gillette. First Solar is competing with China's Suntech Power Holdings, a global giant, and is working on projects to feed California utilities Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric."...http://www.eenews.net/eed/
couldn't we claim everything east of the 15 and north of lake mead by emminent domain and then put solar panels THERE?
If First Solar is so good, then why are they replacing almost every panel there after it was only built a few years ago? Early failure x how many thousands?
These large projects do not make any sense. Where will the electricity from all these projects be used? The US does not generate electricity from foreign oil. The US Energy Information Agency reported a 3.6% decline in electricity demand for 2009. California had almost twice as much reserve capacity needed during summer on-peak. Any jobs produced will be offset with layoffs at conventional power facilities.
The amount of electricity that can be generated from solar is roughly 25-30% of the total kW/h they could generate if they were able to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days of the year. Some have a natural gas pipeline and the capability to burn natural gas at less than half the efficiency of a combined cycle gas turbine. Yet these plants are referred to as solar. California requested the EPA to delay implementation of Green House gas regulations because the regulations will delay solar projects. Solar energy that is supposed to be zero green house emissions.
In addition, also according to the US Energy Information Agency, large solar thermal power plants can harm desert ecosystems if not properly managed. Birds and insects can be killed if they fly into a concentrated beam of sunlight, such as that created by a "solar power tower." Some solar thermal systems use potentially hazardous fluids (to transfer heat) that require proper handling and disposal. Concentrating solar systems may require water for regular cleaning of the concentrators and receivers and for cooling the turbine-generator. Using water from underground wells may affect the ecosystem in some arid locations.
All of these plants use 80s technology with minor improvements. Countries such as China are developing direct steam hybrid technologies to overcome some of the inherent shortcomings.
"couldn't we claim everything east of the 15 and north of lake mead by emminent domain and then put solar panels THERE?"
I vote we start with your property first...
I am not an environmentalist by any stretch.
Tortoises live in the desert, they also die there. Their shells are not an uncommon sight in the Las Vegas desert.
Reveal: Solar energy is not bad. However, a wise person would understand that destroying something that solar energy is supposed to help protect, is like shooting oneself in the foot.
Here is a better use of solar panels - i.e do not waste using what already exists to waste what is pristine and precious.
http://www.energycentral.com/functional/...
The recent housing bubble inflated and burst because the FACTS were ignored
According to the California Independent Systems Operator Glossary, One megawatt equals the instantaneous demand of 750 homes at once. That number fluctuates (some say one megawatt is enough for 1,000 homes) because electrical demand changes based on the season, the time of day, and other factors.
According to the California Energy Commission, 4,802.8 megawatts of Solar Thermal are currently under review. This does not include facilities under 50 megawatts, Solar PV, other or conventional fossil fuel generation.
After a simple calculation, Solar thermal ONLY currently under review is enough to supply 4,802,800 homes. According to the US Census bureau, the average family is 3.37 persons.
Solar Thermal projects Only currently under review will provide electricity for 16,185,436 persons. The population of the State of California is only 36,800,000. Given Industry and municipalities use a lot power, the subject is New additional power and the projected economic growth doesn't justify it.
Nowhere have I read that this tremendous amount of electricity will be complimentary.