Why solar/wind power might be bad for the environment if not done properly.
This afternoon I was overhearing my Dad (who is a plant ecologist who specializes in desert ecology--specifically Mojave desert) talk to one of his old ecologist friends (another Californian) about the current Mojave desert renewable energy plan problem.
Here's a short article explaining the situation.
The summary of the problem is this: Although solar panels and wind turbines may be good for reducing global warming, the current plan for building them across the Mojave desert is an ecological apocalypse for the region. Hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of wilderness torn apart to set up solar panels and wind turbines.
The thing is, the solution is simple. Leave the wilderness alone and put solar panels on the structures that are already in existence. There's no new ecological damage, and renewable energy is still processed.
Berkeley, in fact, has a system in place to do this that has been working fairly effectively. Basically, the city government gives loans to property owners to put solar panels on the roof of the property. The loan is attached to the property, not the owner, so if the owner sells before the loan is paid off, the loan rolls over to the buyer. (This is so if a person sells the property they won't be saddled with a $15K loan on solar panels from which they are no longer receiving benefit.) The property owner saves money on utilities, the city receives money via a small interest on the loan, and pollution is lessened. Everyone but the electric company benefits. Such a thing done on a national scale would be fairly straight forward and financially self-supporting. That would take care of private buildings, and all new public buildings could be henceforth constructed with solar panels and all old public buildings fitted with them as funds permitted. Coating the greater LA area alone with solar panels could probably power all of Cali and the desert wilderness need not be violated to do it.
The reason why this isn't being done is...*puts on my socialist hat, which, incidentally, is a straw trilby*...capitalism. Solar panels stretched out over the wilderness can be owned by a corporation, and therefore the energy produced can be sold for profit, whereas a web of solar panels on private and public property could not be easily commodified.
(On a different but slightly related topic, my parents and I were musing the other day that one of the problems with Americans is that they seem to conflate democracy and market capitalism. When I'm watching the news, I sometimes want to scream that these things are not the same, nor even necessarily coexistent.)
Here's a short article explaining the situation.
The summary of the problem is this: Although solar panels and wind turbines may be good for reducing global warming, the current plan for building them across the Mojave desert is an ecological apocalypse for the region. Hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of wilderness torn apart to set up solar panels and wind turbines.
The thing is, the solution is simple. Leave the wilderness alone and put solar panels on the structures that are already in existence. There's no new ecological damage, and renewable energy is still processed.
Berkeley, in fact, has a system in place to do this that has been working fairly effectively. Basically, the city government gives loans to property owners to put solar panels on the roof of the property. The loan is attached to the property, not the owner, so if the owner sells before the loan is paid off, the loan rolls over to the buyer. (This is so if a person sells the property they won't be saddled with a $15K loan on solar panels from which they are no longer receiving benefit.) The property owner saves money on utilities, the city receives money via a small interest on the loan, and pollution is lessened. Everyone but the electric company benefits. Such a thing done on a national scale would be fairly straight forward and financially self-supporting. That would take care of private buildings, and all new public buildings could be henceforth constructed with solar panels and all old public buildings fitted with them as funds permitted. Coating the greater LA area alone with solar panels could probably power all of Cali and the desert wilderness need not be violated to do it.
The reason why this isn't being done is...*puts on my socialist hat, which, incidentally, is a straw trilby*...capitalism. Solar panels stretched out over the wilderness can be owned by a corporation, and therefore the energy produced can be sold for profit, whereas a web of solar panels on private and public property could not be easily commodified.
(On a different but slightly related topic, my parents and I were musing the other day that one of the problems with Americans is that they seem to conflate democracy and market capitalism. When I'm watching the news, I sometimes want to scream that these things are not the same, nor even necessarily coexistent.)