The solar power compromise: Sacrificing the desert to save
the Earth
This article in the LA
Times discusses BrightSource Energy’s Ivanpah solar power project in the
Mojave Desert in southern California.
The $2-billion project—currently the largest solar plant under
construction in the world—will yield enough energy to serve more than 140,000
California homes during the peak hours of the day.
Upon first reflection, a project centered around natural and
renewable energy that is being built in a remote location seems to have few
alarming drawbacks. Indeed, the
article notes that because of the benefits associate with renewable energy, the
project has faced little opposition in both the legal and public sectors. It also catalogs the functions of
American deserts to include such uses as “dusty storehouses for government scrap”
and “a staging ground for tanks.”
However, such a large-scale project could hardly be carried out without
significantly altering the environment that it is being installed in.
In this case, many species of desert plants and animals have been
displaced, and the repercussions of the transformation to the natural environment will extend beyond
a human lifetime. Another particularly striking point that was incongruous with my initial reactions was the assertion that “capturing a free and clean source of energy is not cheap,” and solar is particularly expensive at three times the cost of natural gas or coal. While it must ultimately be a lucrative endeavor, pursuing a costly source of energy because it is renewable will have benefits beyond the more tangible monetary ones.
It is a project that seems characterized by
compromises. BrightSource made
concessions with respect to the interests of environmental and government
groups. On a larger scale, the
decision was made to compromise one natural sphere to take advantage of
another. Are these consequences
that we are willing to accept in return for access to a renewable energy
source? Will the loss of a species
of tortoise in the Mojave Desert become part of a chain reaction that will
greatly cost the human population, or is it an unfortunate loss that is part of
a solution to an issue that is of more immediate concern? The project is called “an experiment on
a grand scale…[and] science is racing to catch up.”
For further information, here is the website for the
project: http://ivanpahsolar.com/
I definitely found the article to be one about compromises as well, though it seems that all the compromises in this case have resulted in the environment being the loser. I was intrigued by the article's title with the word "compromise" because one does not often see solar energy as a compromise. What this article did for me, then, was expose the way that issues associated with seemingly benign energy sources (like solar) are still extremely destructive. This underscores the need to conserve energy rather than retroactively come up with new sources to meet our unquenchable need for it.
ReplyDeleteThese issues, such as loss of species and natural landscape, are of even greater concern given that the actors who normally speak on their behalves have been silenced due to economics. The fact that capitalism seems to be driving this indiscriminate purchase of desert land for "solar power" necessitates that money is the ultimate concern of companies such as BrightSource. The interplay between government and the private sector is interesting here, because normally one would expect to find the government acting as the party in violation of the environment, not speaking out to protect it.
What is most worrisome for me, however, is the extent to which this is a “grand experiment,” as you referenced in your post. I wouldn’t necessarily oppose development of new energy sources like this, but perhaps it would be best to take a cautious approach in order to better gauge its effect on the environment.
It all comes down to the intention. If BrightSource is harming the desert for the sake of harnessing cleaner and more efficient energy, and if they truly believe that their projects will succeed in accomplishing that, then I say so be it. Yes, the biodiversity of the Mojave Desert will be affected, but projects like this will start a transition towards solar energy and away from far more polluting energy sources like coal and gas. On the other hand, if BrightSource is intentionally making a financial gambit and simply wants to chase money from federal subsidies and investors without assurance that the projects will even work, like Schramm says in the article, that's a no-no.
ReplyDeleteThe higher cost for using solar energy is another issue. Of course, the amount of research and technology that went into this project is immense, but three times the cost of energy fueled by natural gas or coal is absurd. BrightSource may want to defray the capital costs that went into the project, but they have to consider the accessibility of solar energy or else the general public will never catch on.
While the impact of this project is bound to be detrimental to the existing bio-system and hugely expensive, the hope is that the ends will justify the means. The previous comment brought up a great point that this project will serve as a transition away from non-renewable energy. As with most other green initiatives, the initial investment is expensive, but if we shy away from such projects now, we are even further away from sustainable living.
ReplyDelete