[p2p-research] Environmental issues around solar energy plants

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Again:
   "Sunrise for solar heat power "
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/08/18/sunrise-for-solar-heat-power/
"""
Some point out that this method’s large pedestals holding the glass 
parabolas, some 38 feet across, represent a cost that low-profile, 
flat-mirror approaches have successfully eliminated.
   Nonetheless, in purely thermodynamic terms, the SunCatcher is the most 
efficient CSP approach so far. It converts 31 percent of the sun’s energy to 
grid-ready electricity. By comparison, photovoltaic ranges between 8 and 15 
percent efficiency, and trough CSP between 15 and 19 percent.
   The SunCatcher has one more advantage: The engines aren’t cooled with 
water. The hydrogen cools in an air radiator similar to that found in a car.
   That’s important because, in the arid and semiarid regions of the desert 
Southwest, where CSP makes the most sense, water is already a hot-button 
issue. And it’s predicted to become more so.
   “The Southwest is a great place to build solar, but it’s not a great 
place to build water-intensive solar,” says Peter Gleick, president of the 
Pacific Institute in Oakland, Calif., a nonprofit devoted to sustainability 
issues.
   Air-cooling CSP is possible, but can decrease efficiency and – in some 
situations and regions – increase costs by 5 to 10 percent. Yet for some, 
it’s already a selling point. BrightSource Energy, a company developing a 
400-MW “power tower” plant in the Mojave, touts the fact that its plant will 
be entirely air-cooled.
"""

So, who profits from spreading FUD about solar in the desert?

On environmental impact statements, it is tradeoffs. Would the coal industry 
get a permit if someone was inventing it now? Of course not. In fact, even 
just new coal plants are not getting permits.

Also, I don't understand why, with announcements like this:
   "Nanosolar books $4.1 billion in orders, reveals tech"
   http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/47622

that an article stating that solar PV uses no water (ignoring solar thermal 
that also uses no water, as above) and then goes on to worry about water in 
the desert because of stuff like "[PV[ still remain rare for 
commercial-scale power plants. They are extremely costly ..." should be 
taken seriously?

Just Fear-Uncertainty-and-Doubt (FUD) spreading. Again, who profits from 
this FUD?

This article can't even get the technical or economic facts straight as to 
what exists today, and then go on to spread fear. Why is this?

I do think it is fair to complain that the desert is beautiful, and does 
have plants and animals, and turning it over to for-profits permanently is 
questionable, especially without significant taxes or a related basic 
income. But, the fact is, other areas of the world are being destroyed by 
fossil fuel use, whether global climate change or air and water pollution. 
So, it is tradeoffs. But why does the article not consider that? More FUD.

Five years will prove my points right. :-) Then everyone will see this. I 
can understand why it is so hard to see. Exponential growth is confusing. 
There are a lot of evils capitalism has done. It is hard to make tradeoffs. 
And there has been a lot of hype. Anyway, slowly these facts about solar and 
wind may seep into the general consciousness. It will be hard to through off 
all the FUD the fossil fuel and nuclear industry has been spreading for 
decades, and they've had a lot of money to spread it with. They are fighting 
prosperity and peer-produced energy to the last. :-) Still, be careful you 
are not helping them. :-)

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/4756/when_renewable_is_not_sustainable/
> 
> The solar energy industry is similarly benefiting from federal legislation
> that paid no attention to water and land availability. In 2005, Congress
> enacted the Energy Policy Act, giving the Departments of Energy and Interior
> the mandate to establish renewable energy projects on federal land, which
> will generate more than 10,000 megawatts of electricity.
> 
> The obvious place to locate solar projects is in the desert Southwest, where
> the sun shines year-round. As of June 2009, solar power companies had filed
> applications for more than 150 permits for solar power plants on federal
> land in Arizona, California and Nevada, mostly land owned by the Bureau of
> Land Management (BLM), an agency of the Department of the Interior.
> Assembling a sufficient number of solar panels or mirrors for a power plant
> requires a large tract of land. The permits being evaluated by BLM involve
> more than one million acres of land, an area larger than the state of Rhode
> Island.
> 
> BLM has begun preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To
> date, the bureau hasn’t announced what kind of leases or permits it will
> grant corporations for the use of federal land. Clearly, there must be
> long-term arrangements if the plants are to be commercially viable. The net
> effect will be to turn over exclusive use of federal land to for-profit
> corporations.
> 
> More troublesome is the potential water use of these companies. If solar
> power is generated by photovoltaic cells, it uses almost no water. The cells
> directly convert the sun’s rays into electricity. Such systems are becoming
> more common in home applications, but still remain rare for commercial-scale
> power plants. They are extremely costly and the power is not constant, as it
> is generated only during the day when the sun shines. Utilities greatly
> prefer cheap 24/7 power.
> 
> For commercial power plants, solar companies use a technology known as
> “concentrating solar thermal” (CST). The sun heats a fluid that boils water.
> The steam spins a turbine that generates electricity. All thermal power
> plants produce waste heat as a byproduct and use cooling towers to release
> the waste heat to the ambient atmosphere—usually by the evaporation of
> water. Apart from the first step that uses the sun’s heat, CST is an
> old-fashioned thermal power plant that consumes vast quantities of water.
> 
> That’s not a problem for a plant located in Michigan, but 150 solar plants
> located in the Mojave Desert create a major water problem. Desert wildlife,
> including endangered species, depend heavily on rare seeps and springs that
> would likely dry up because of large-scale groundwater pumping.
> 
> It is feasible to air-cool CST plants but, again, the desert climate poses a
> problem. It’s hot outside, which makes dispersing the waste heat using hot
> desert air very inefficient. The solar companies prefer to use wet-cooled
> plants, because they cost almost 10 percent less to build and generate five
> percent more power than do air-cooled plants.
> 
> The National Park Service and many environmental organizations are beginning
> to realize that the water demands of ethanol and solar power are
> problematic. The Park Service has urged the Departments of Energy and the
> Interior to deny permits for water-cooled plants. Air cooling would reduce
> water consumption by as much as 90 percent. As the EIS process moves
> forward, these departments should give preference to plants that use
> air-cooling. The last thing we need are hundreds of commercial-scale
> groundwater wells drilled on water-scarce federal land.
> Congress must integrate its energy and water policies. This is critical as
> global warming begins to reduce flows in western rivers, which translates
> directly into a loss of energy produced by hydroelectric facilities at
> federal dams. Replacing this lost energy without using fossil-fuel plants
> will be a real challenge.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org