Balancing Renewable Energy Projects & Public Lands Stewardship
America is on the verge of a renewable energy gold rush. Hundreds of applications for wind and solar projects have been filed on public lands. I think this is long overdue. We need sustainable energy to help us reduce global warming pollution, and we need it fast. But if we don't handle this boom carefully, unspoiled wildlands will get trammeled in its wake. Right now, we have an opportunity to start the clean energy era off right.
It begins with agreeing which sensitive areas should remain undeveloped. Wind and solar power are pollution free, but they are not impact free. They leave an industrial footprint on the land, and some pristine places would be forever altered by their presence.
That's why my friends at NRDC got together with Google Earth and started mapping out public lands where renewable development is not appropriate. Some of the spots colored in on the map are obvious--national parks, wilderness areas, and national monuments where energy development is already prohibited by law or federal policy.
But the map also illustrates places where development should be avoided, even if it isn't illegal. These include the hundreds of state parks that visitors rely on for hiking and other recreation. They also include proposed wilderness areas being considered by Congress, such as the 9.5 million acres of stunning scenery in Southern Utah that I hope gains protection through America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
The remarkable thing is that even when you set these areas aside, there is plenty of land to develop solar and wind projects. The state of California recently did a similar mapping process and found that when it removed all the environmentally sensitive lands, California still has renewable potential of about 500,000 MW--that's greater than the state's peak demand.
But we can't begin the new energy future by only saying where we can't build renewable projects. We also have to agree on where we can. The lands best suited to wind farms and solar plants are those that have already been disturbed. Up and down the Rockies, there are hundreds of oil and gas fields that are now defunct. In my home state of California, there are thousands of acres of old farms that went bust. And now more than ever, there are private lands that have been carved up for subdivisions that never got built.
These already distressed lands may not satisfy all renewable developers. But hopefully, with so much public land available, they will make reasonable compromises--like not building in a bighorn sheep migration path when they can gain access to other lands instead.
I see two persuasive reasons why the environmental community and the renewable sector can work in unison. The first is credibility. People support renewable projects because they think they are green, and that includes sustainable land use. The second is urgency. Our nation needs to begin the transition away from dirty fossil fuels now in order to stave off the worst impacts of global warming. Controversies and lawsuits over siting will only delay the process.
We spent the last eight years locked in a battle with an administration that sparked rampant oil and gas drilling on our lands. Those days are over. Bush is gone, and Americans recognize the need for clean energy. We have a fresh start, and we have the chance to get the balance between generating sustainable power and caring for our lands right from beginning.
U.S. seeks to spur renewable energy on public lands | Reuters
Letters to the Editor Blog: Greg Scott: Energy from public lands ...
Obama Administration Will Develop Renewable Energy on Public Land
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Those interested in promoting solar and wind should check out GEOthermic at:
http://sir
Can someone please tell me why everything we need to do NOW to insure the survival of our species on this planet has a miserable $$$PRICE TAG$$$ stuck to it?
Because that's the way the world works . . .
some of us support conservation and point of use energy generation - both of which PROVIDE FINANCIAL SAVINGS to ratepayer-
if you generate your own power (grid-tied) and are paid a fair price for clean power you feed into the grid (called a feed in tariff, working in 48 countries already), and watch how much you use, you can MAKE A MODEST PROFIT from saving your property value, your ecosystems and eliminating your utility bills.
support democratic clean energy that is faster, cheaper and saves our open spaces! push for loan programs like CA's AB 811 which amortize over 20 years, attach to the property and give you a tax-writeoff for the interest - good info at:
www.renewf
and feed in tariffs -good info at
http://onl
http://www
Big Energy is still at it, killing our planet and robbing us blind. Owning our own clean power generation is the most important step any of us can make in the next 5 years, bar none.
there is no free lunch.
It doesn't. rooftop solar and rural/offshore wind are cheaper than what we pay now, in the long term $/KWH. see more profile/.
I live for the day when solar power is a standard on homes. Even if it can't supply 100% of the energy, it will certainly help! It's a crime here in Florida that only a few homes have solar energy. I'm hoping with the new admin solar energy is more in the reach of middle class.
Bingo gold rush, talking about big oil companies, now solar and win companies are trying to cash in until some new ideas come up. It all about greed no matter what you may think.
It's no longer a question of Big Solar just being "like" Big Oil, Big Solar IS Big Oil.
CHEVRON and BP own one of the worst offenders in the Big Solar greenwash - BRIGHT SOURCE. They are on some tortoise-killing, water wasting, bulldozing, gas-burning, GHG-spewing desert death trip, with a Solar Smiley Face pasted all over it.
Robert Kennedy, Jr. is an "advisor" who gets them incredible political access - Feinstein, Schwarzenegger, you name it. Plus NRDC and Sierra Club are greenwashing them frantically. To benefit the Great Satan, CHEVRON.
Makes ya wonder...
Space for wind turbines is not the issue here. Putting wind turbines on private land especialy farms is a win/win situation. West Texas right now is being loaded with wind turbines. This is comparitavly barren land.
The plains states have the most consistant winds in the world. The massive agricultural plains are the perfect place for wind farms. This is a bonanza for the farmers because they would make money from each and every turbine on their property. The giant tractors and equipment used in large scale farming can easily drive around a wind turbine. I'm hesitant to use public lands for wind farms. I'm all for private sector land for wind farms. I'm also hesitant about off shore wind farms, they are more expensive to build and maintain than dry land wind farms.With development of the open plains of the midwest I believe we can solve our energy dependance problems, or at least make giant strides in the right direction. See www.picken
Tell me why wind farms are wanted in Pennsylvania?
Only class 2 and 3 winds in many places where winds farms are proposed.
Class 3 are only just good enough....
The Google database that you mention in this blog is yet another useful example of consolidated public information that can assist us in developing what we call PERRMs (Potential Energy and Renewable Resource Maps) for our clients. Thank you.
Online Land Planning specializes in integrated strategies for property owners interested in locating and developing land based on a sustainable design approach. We collect, correlate and interpret data on wind, geothermal, CH&P, wastewater treatment, biomass, landfill, conventional and renewable electrical generation, hydro agriculture, bioremediation and potential for waste loop optimization.
To learn more, Visit us at: http://www
During WWII, home power producing wind generators were manufactured which gave a household all the power it needed. Modern windchargers are available from many online sites, plus very efficient storage batteries, regulators, etc. Some states allow people to connect to the power grid. Any home power produced from windchargers, photocells, small hydro or even small geothermal can be fed to the grid to make one's electric meter run backwards, in effect selling their home power to the utility.
Home power on every rooftop with grid connection is the proven answer. It is not given much publicity because utilities want large, preferably taxpayer funded centralized power production. Why waste fossil power heating water when a solar water heater will do it practically for free? Why push polluting coal when we can have easily have clean alternatives now?
The nuclear industry bribes the politicians and fools the public into funding trillions of dollars worth of their construction, protection, waste disposal and decommissioning. They don't account for the public health costs of their uninsurable operation by the surreptitious release of long lived radioisotopes in gases and fluids that enter the food chain to forever increase the incidence of cancer in the world. They don't account for larger nuclear accidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island and by the cost of protecting these plants from terrorist attacks, etc.
Obama is correct in pushing for a smart grid. He is wrong in bending over for the nuke industry.
That was great 60 years ago but has not the average electiricity consumption increased dramatically with all the modern conveniences including ac, washers & driers, not to mention computers?
Not only that but the Electric companies have strangled us to death with their rate hikes.
And of course, like every other company they have broken down their bills and charged more for everything
So, in the end, you pay more for less electricity.
Mr Redford, you are right, there is a balance to be struck. EVERYTHING we humans do has an impact on the world and on all that we share this rock with. Let's be careful about the next step in energy, instead of just assuming the next step will be the last one needed.
We must protect what is left of the planet if we are going save it. We must plan carefully so that as we move from carbon based fuels we do not make an even bigger mess. There are places on this lovely planet that should be left alone. And there are places that are already so damaged that we may as well use them for all we can.
We have not achieved perfection yet, but we have only started to try.
A quick review of stats published in scientific journals indicates rates of bird mortality due to wind turbine on the order of generally less than 1 bird death per wind turbine per year. Significant variance exists around this number. But, since wind farms may contain hundreds of turbines, a concern is justified. However, the data also indicates that the numbers vary significantly with site, turbine type, turbine grid layout, bird species involved, migration routes, etc.
I suspect Mr. Redford would agree that one of the important considerations for locating wind farms is protection to birds. The good news is that we can expect the already fairly low bird-death
Iknow Mr. Redford is aware that housing developments in the wilderness has done more to harm the migratory patterns of land animals...
I just hope that all of this is way to late for all mankind it is to late for so many animals.
We should have started trying to help Mother Earth before I was born in 1946 so we wouldn't be in this mess but man thought they were the ruler and not GOD and now he is tired and so watch out because he can and will pull the final plug.
I agree with you, but considering how few people are commenting on this issue..the
Save Public Lands --- REAL environmentalists support Nuclear Power.
The staggering impact on land use that would result from wind and solar is one of the chief reasons that John Lovelock supports nuclear power.
To give a local example: I live in NH. The Seabrook nuclear power station is a couple of small buildings. It needs to be refueled every 18 months by a single semi-truck. It supplies half the electricity for the state (with some more for export)! And, generates NO CO2. Electric rates are low.
Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = Bright future for the world. (if you don't believe it, look at what China is doing)
And we have had massive clean up projects in our western states, with widespread ground contaimenation, aquifer containation, deformitity in wildlife..
Yes, which is why employing substantial portions of our offshore Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles out to sea from our coastlines, an area the size of Europe) for alternative energy development is so important. We have five regions of offshore EEZ to manage: East Coast, Gulf Coast, West Coast, Alaska and Pacific Islands. To date, though the developmen
Consider the Connection to:
Environmental Conservation
Please Google Search:
CTC123GREEN
USE THE PUBLIC LANDS AND PLACE WIND GENERATORS ALONG EVERY STRIP OF WIND SWEPT BARREN GROUND POSSIBLE.
The cost of installing these Wind Generators is less than 1/500 of the cost of Offshore Wind Generation Stations.
We need to get control of our power needs now and when technology is advanced removed old technology.
What good are the Public Lands if they can not be used when America is in desperate needs of them ??
The USA can shut down all trash burning facilities the porduce electric power and coal burning facilities just by harnessing the wind.
CLEAN AIR, CLEAN WATER AND BETTER HEALTH JUST FROM INSTALLING WIND GENERATORS.
What are we waiting for ???????
You are pusing wind turbines because you were dupped by GE, the only manufactured of the turbine. Global warming only keeps Gore in the money and his face in the news. If you are really worried about energy independence you would allow drilling off and on shore for natural gas and oil. You would allow the use of coal and nuclear. You don't want the lumber industry to cut down trees for a mouse but you will ruin miles of landscape for wind turbines and solar panels. The present clear air restrictions are better thatn they were 10 years ago. Why do you think the exhaust system of your car lasts longer. The emmsions from cars is better. The EPA does a great job at curtailing emmisions from factories. I don't know what other things that you people want. You have an agenda that makes no sense at all.
as of yet no american plant is manufacturing the wind turbines..
Mr. Redford,
I propose you are coming from the wrong end, but given the government's propensity to award banks free taxpayer money rather than the taxpayer, Maybe there should be solar on every residential house in America. Even in those climes where it is cloudy, raining, snowing etc. It is still an adjunct power source. In SoCal, the power companies governed by the PUC should be forced to give up their requirement for being on the grid, which reduces the cost of a solar system substantially. And A solar system should be funded for every house before all the trillions of our money goes to the purveyors of wealth, the banks. And get rid of the Fed. While this is going on a moratorium on corporate exploitation of it. Giving it to corporations first seals the 'commons' again to non-deserving, 1st serve generational BS. This enbles control over a natural dynamo that corporate Amerika did not pay for. That they had absolutely nothing invested in. Can you say the sun, a star, was created by energy corporations for our benefit?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
