Federal judge halts 1st large-scale solar project on public lands

[Liberty Belle]

Source: East County Magazine (San Diego's East County)

Judge grants Quechan Indian tribe’s request for temporary injunction on Tessera Solar plant in Imperial Valley; decision has ramifications for large-scale energy projects in East County and across the nation


December 16, 2010 (San Diego’s East County) – Local and statewide activists battling massive energy projects on public lands are praising a decision issued by U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns yesterday, while the CEO of Tessera Solar says he is "deeply disappointed" in the ruling.



The federal Judge issued a temporary restraining order halting construction on the first massive desert solar project authorized on public lands—a project that if built, would be one of the largest solar power plants in the world.



The Court ruled that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management failed to adequately consult with the tribe regarding protection of 459 cultural resources identified at 300 locations on the site in Imperial County. Burns noted that the BLM’s draft environmental impact statement found that the project “may wholly or partially destroy all archaeological sites on the surface of the project area.”


The 10-mile-long project would entail scraping 6,000 acres of the desert floor and installing massive parabolic mirrored Sun Catchers made by Stirling Energy Systems. The project could produce 1,000 MW of power by 2012 and is slated to provide power to be transmitted over SDG&E’s Sunrise Powerlink lines through San Diego’s East County.

Read more: http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/5023

---

If this ruling stands, it is likely to spur more lawsuits to halt massive-scale wind, solar, and powerline construction projects across the U.S. The BLM's mission is supposed to be to protect public lands -- but under the current Dept. of Interior (which has a former Sempra Energy lobbyist as second in command) our national forests and BLM lands are being opened up as profit centers for big energy and utility companies. Once these lands are gone, they cannot be restored.

Here's a link to another protest that I covered last week in the McCain Valley, a wilderness area set to have multiple massive energy projects go in: http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/4982

All of these lands are veritable treasure troves of Spanish and Native American artifacts, sacred burial grounds, and more, as well as beautiful, unspoiled wilderness.

What is the Obama administration thinking?

Power for our region CAN be met with investment in rooftop solar for less than what these destructive projects will cost--but of course that means no profit in the pockets of utility industry shareholders.

If you believe massive energy projects in public wilderness and forest lands are wrong, please send a message to Obama at the White House and anyone else who will listen. These projects are proposed all across America -- Theodore Roosevelt, a conservationist who started our public preservation of wild lands, must be rolling over in his grave.

[XemaSab]

1. Very interesting

I've been following a few other projects that seem to be dead in the water too. Very interesting.

[jwirr]

2. Don't we have anyone else to take land from? Not that the tribe is

against solar but they know what we have done in the past and they usually get the shaft. Better to be cautious.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Perhaps...but I hope they aren't being manipulated by Big Oil/Big Coal, etc.

There could be a lot of money being greased by power competitors who are using these people to torpedo this. I'm not saying these concerns are not legitimate, but I'd like to really learn more of the local dynamics that are driving the opposition. Seems to me solar power is much more Earth friendly than, say, drilling oil or strip mining. These issues have never stopped those kind of energy projects, AFAIK.

[Liberty Belle]

6. You're wrong in this case.

Big oil is salivating to get the Sunrise Powerlink project built, which this would hook into. Powerlink is also likely to bring dirty coal-fired energy up from Mexico, where Sempra (owner of SDG&E) owns a facility.

I wrote these stories. I personally interviewed these Indians. The pain in their faces and voices was evident, as were the tears in their eyes and the catch in their voices. They are genuinely heartbroken over seeing their ancestral lands ravaged and their ancestors desecrated.

Another local tribe, Viejas, has halted a water reservoir project over desecration of Indian graves. When the water board arrogantly defied a court order and kept digging, Viejas got attorney general Jerry Brown to sue, got an injunction to halt construction, and then funded a mailer for candidates running against the members they perceived as anti-Indian. One incumbent lost his election as a result.

The tribes are flexing their muscles, and may be the ones to emerge as better stewards of public lands then the government.

[tabatha]

8. They have always been better stewards of the land.

They are not in it for the money. They understand the land better than most.

I support the preservation of their cultural heritage.

Hopefully, Jerry Brown understands this too.

[Liberty Belle]

9. Jerry gets it, to a point. But he has green blinders on

when it comes to large-scale powerline projects that would hook together these massive wind and solar projects.

It isn't green if it destroys the environment, in my book. He needs to learn more about the impacts.

But these projects are primarily on federal land, so it may be out of Jerry's jurisdiction even if he opposes some of these projects.

Now Kamala Harris, California's new AG, is one to watch-- perhaps she could sue to protect public lands in CA.
Any lawyers care to weigh in here?

[freedom fighter jh]

17. Drilling and mining projects typically don't have to have environmental impact statements.

An environmental impact statement is required (under the National Environmental Policy Act) when the federal government is involved. Maybe there's some federal money in the solar project.

[bananas]

18. Farmland - but that's been used for McMansion developments. nt

[tabatha]

3. There is tons of acreage --- on roof tops.

I am against this kind of desecration of wilderness areas.

[Safetykitten]

4. Exactly!

[Liberty Belle]

7. Bingo! Go to the head of the class.

[Tansy_Gold]

19. Exactly -- but the power corps. couldn't profit from that. n/t

[Statistical]

20. Why couldn't they?

It is simply easier to pave over a couple square miles of land.

No reason power companies can't profit from rooftop solar.

In parts of CA they already do. They sign 20+ year leases for rooftops (mainly in industrial parks) and install solar. It puts the power generation closer to the consumption and saves the power company from having to build/expand expensive long range transmission lines.

Smart vs Brute force.

[madokie]

22. If I could afford it I could put enough solar panels on my roof

to offset my electrical usage from the hydro and coal I use now. Why doesn't the power companies not see the potential there (rooftop solar) is beyond me

Most of our power comes from three big dams on the river a mile from here.

[quakerboy]

32. They see it

But they also see it might just be cheaper to pave over some federal land. I am sure they plan to own the land perminantly at some point, probably for pennies on the dollar. It seems likely that they will get federal money to aid in building the solar facilities. And probably also in building the transmission lines.

And then there is image and perception as well. They have to keep people dependent on them, or they have a big problem. If they think its worth putting solar on your neighbors roof, you might conjecture that it would be worth putting solar panels on your own damn roof. Then where would they be?

[hunter]

27. There is plenty of acerage over parking lots too.

Leave the desert alone, in fact leave all undeveloped areas alone. Humans have destroyed too many ecosystems already.

[timo]

34. hell yeah

halt all building of new subdivisions NOW!!!! no more housing should be built on ANY new ground!!

[Liberty Belle]

10. No recommendations? Would be nice to make sure more folks can see this , as it has national

ramifications.

[Adsos Letter]

23. I just added one. K&R.

[Mnemosyne]

11. KnR for visibility. n/t

:hi:

[TheMadMonk]

12. Rooftop solar has its problems, starting with a likely impact on urban trees.

Plus maximum grid feed capacity happens at a time when domestic consumption is at a minimum and drops off to nothing exactly when domestic demand picks up to maximum.

One huge downside to virtually ALL utility scale solar installations is that the only place for them is "waste space", essentially empty roofs and deserts. Large scale solar generation really is in a lot of ways the ultimate monoculture.

[diane in sf]

14. Here in CA max power is needed in the afternoon when the valley turns on the AC

in the hot season (summer and fall) so solar timing works pretty well here.

[quakerboy]

33. There are some things that could be done to mitigate the issue of timing

For instance, a large scale move toward plug in cars has the potential to provide a huge battery to the system.

But even without that, the fact is that every KWH of Solar power used is still one less of coal or oil or other that is needed to be produced at that moment.


I am curious what you mean by "impact on urban trees"? I live here in Portland OR, where we live literally in a rain forest, so if anything will impact tree's, I think its fair to say this would be where you would see it amplified the biggest. Some parts of the city still look like a forest from above and at an angle. However, even here there is a lot of roof space that is not blocked by trees, and that amount is only growing as population density increases and the space between new development decreases. I do not see where rooftop solar could have anywhere near the level of impact on greenery as that. Can you explain further what you are talking about?

[TheMadMonk]

35. Except, all too often, the plug in cars will be parked at work...

...during daylight hours and not with the solar panels back home. So a second battery pack, and an easy swap arrangement which is NOT an option with current vehicles.

Cars as a part of the grid storage system strikes me as very problematical. What percentage of your vehicle's storage capacity can The Electric Co. coopt? How much of an already limited range are people expected to forego? Then we get into cheaters.

Large scale penetration of rooftop solar power generation WILL require a lot of changes to the infrastructure.


As for the trees, it's simple enough. For all but a few type of solar panel ANY shade whatsoever will disproportionately degrade the performance of the panel. Thus people installing systems will cut back and remove trees which shade their homes. Plus the potential for dispute with neighbours over their trees is enormous.

In new developments, more solar panels will result in fewer trees being planted. You might even find covenants being attached to properties which forbid trees over a certain height.

Established trees might survive if civic authorities are willing to forbid their removal, but over time I and others believe that trees of any significant height will become a lot rarer than they already are in the urban landscape.

[quakerboy]

36. I guess I see those as addressable problems

eg, make charging at work a reality. I already see charging stations around the city.

I am curious what you mean by "cheaters"



AS to the trees, I guess I do not see this as a huge or insurmountable problem. I see a reduction in trees in urban areas regardless, without any solar panels to justify it. People don't want to take care of them, they are concerned about falling limbs, etc, and a venerable old tree is downed. Or, more often in my perception, a developer buys a lot, manages to get it rezoned to build a half dozen units, with no room for things like trees. Perhaps a couple bushes to make it look nice. But no real trees. As long as we keep taking down trees as we keep increasing in number and density, we might as well get solar panels with the deal, no?

[TheMadMonk]

37. Cheat, as in modify their car to "pretend" to be a part of the grid...

...but always maintain itself at 100% charge, to accept surges, but not feed anything back to the grid. And since it pretty much has to be opt in anyway, there's a damned good chance people will simply refuse to come to that party at all.

Yes, some urban tree reduction will happen regardless. However, rooftop solar is more likely than not to accelerate it and take it further.


Of course the issues I've mentioned are adressable, but not necessarily cheaply, or without complicating issues of their own. Quick swap battery packs for cars, homes and other applications would be a good idea, but first it would require forcing a "standard" on auto makers, and secondly we'll have to figure out a system to deal gracefully with older packs if we do the logical thing and make "refueling" a matter of swapping packs at service stations.

BTW IIRC, known world supplies of lithium (including the newly (re)discovered Afghani deposits), are nowhere near sufficient to fully electrify our roads. Separation from ocean water is possible, however it's not ecconomical unless the price of lithium rises significantly. There is a similar supply problem for platinum group metals used in fuel cells, which have also been touted as an option for powering electric vehicles.

Intermittent renewables such as wind and solar demand significant changes to the way the electricity grid operates and a good deal of support equipment if they are to make any truly significant contribution to generating capacity.

And if they are to make that significant contribution we need to properly consider the negative impacts and not just blythely declare them automatically "better".


Personally, my opinion is that the better option for dealing with the currently developing crisis is to look for solutions that reuse as much of and demand as little modification as possible of existing infrastructure.


One key element of ANY solution is that we do at least a little "growing up" as a species. Enough that we don't have to worry about greedy pricks cutting one corner too many, and nutcases misusing the fruits of knowledge.

[Frank Booth]

13. Woohoo!! More coal-fired energy!!

Not to be heart-hearted, but the Imperial Valley is one of the ugliest places in California. If we care anything about the earth, the solar energy project's got to go somewhere, and we all know it's not going on rooftops. This would have been about the spot possible.

[diane in sf]

15. We don't do much coal in CA, it will be natural gas, nukes, wind (soon)

[dreamnightwind]

16. I was pretty excited about this project

I haven't looked closely at the impacts on the land, and maybe i should, but this seemed like a good way to get a lot of very clean energy. We need solar, solar, and more solar.

Too bad we can't collect it up in space. I suppose there would be no way to get the energy down to earth?. Maybe some targeted artificial lightning could beam it down like a laser. Plus, we could weaponize it, oh goody!

[Statistical]

21. Microwave.

Microwave rectifier is most efficient method to "beam" energy long distances without wires.

The stumbling block is the "cost to space". LEO right now costs about $2K to $5K per kg. Thats right per kilogram (2.5 pounds). To Geo transfer orbit can be as much as 10x that.

Until we find/develop a more efficient way to get things into space the economics for space based power doesn't work.

[dreamnightwind]

24. Interesting

though I don't know some of the terms. What's LEO? Lower earth orbit?

I was mostly joking, I didn't think space based power would be feasible at this time, sounds like it might be someday though. Too bad there isn't a large vacant object already orbiting the earth that reflects sunlight. I wonder if the lunar surface has sand or silicone? Solar power from the moon, now that's crazy.

On a more serious note, there hasn't been much real discussion in this thread about the relative merits of using large areas of land for solar energy, instead solar is being pretty much limited to rooftops (in this thread anyway). Seriously? I still think dedicating some areas of land to solar production could be a great way to go. Think of all the harms to the earth of what we're doing now without solar.

[Statistical]

26. Yes LEO = low earth orbit (where the space station is).

The technology exists and there are some huge advantages. Solar insolation in space is roughly 20x that on earth. So same panel is space outputs 20x the energy. The main problem is cost to put something in space is insane and that cost hasn't come down much at all in last 50 years.

Yes rooftop solar is so much better than large area solar on some many levels.

[dreamnightwind]

28. Microwave rectifier?

I googled this to check it out, didn't get me very far (lots of info on ovens), any hints? Better search terms? I didn't know we actually had a way to wirelessly move power, I'd be interested to know about any. Just curious, moving power through the air has always seemed like one of those odd challenges that hasn't been done or at least hasn't been made accessible.

[Statistical]

30. Wireless power is a challenge ... but it can be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power#Wireless_power_transmission_to_the_Earth

[dreamnightwind]

31. Thanks!

[fascisthunter]

25. why not just take Palestinians' land

seems to be acceptable

[boppers]

29. Nothing like non-desert people arguing about the desert.

Endless amusement for people who understand the context.