Nevada Democratic U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen recently announced she is co-sponsoring a piece of legislation titled the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019, which is touted as bipartisan legislation to promote the development of renewable energy on public lands — which is the vast majority of the land in Nevada.
“Nevada’s public lands are a source of pride and natural beauty in our state, but they also represent a potential home for clean, renewable power that will benefit Nevada and our country,” the senator is quoted in a press release put out by her office. “At a time when we’re facing the real, dangerous effects of climate change, we must find policy solutions to embrace clean energy alternatives to curb harmful carbon emissions. This bipartisan legislation would help to identify and advance additional renewable energy projects in wind, solar, and geothermal on federal lands, which make up nearly 80 percent of our state. I will continue to support forward-thinking policies that put us on a pathway towards a clean energy future.”
The bill would create another federal bureaucracy called the Renewable Energy Coordination Office, which would be tasked with streamlining the permitting of renewable energy development. The bill would set aside a small portion of the leasing revenue for state and local governments.
The trouble with renewable energy generating facilities — especially wind and solar — is that they are not cheap, are not really all that clean and constitute an incredible eyesore on the pristine landscape — witness the massive wind farm near Ely, the photovoltaic solar panels near Boulder City and the thermal solar mirror installations near Ivanpah and Tonopah.
“Not withstanding the romantic view of wind and solar power held by many, they are not cost-competitive, they are very far from clean, and they would do remarkably little to limit greenhouse-gas emissions and anthropogenic climate change, the ‘crisis view of which is unsupported by the evidence,” writes Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute in an October edition of the National Review. “Several available analyses show that a major expansion of wind and solar power would increase the emissions of such conventional pollutants as carbon monoxide.”
Zycher cites Institute for Energy Research estimates that wind power is about twice as expensive as conventional gas-fired power and that solar power is almost three times as expensive. Those costs are passed on to the residential and business power customers or the taxpayers via subsidies. “The ubiquitous claims that wind and solar power now are cost-competitive ignore substantial costs for backup power and much longer transmission lines, and the effects of massive subsidies and guaranteed market shares,” Zycher explains.
And they gobble land. Zycher says that to achieve the renewable energy goals of the Green New Deal would require a land mass 15 percent larger than the entire state of California.
As for preventing global warming, the author says the renewable energy goals of the Green New Deal, even under highly favorable assumptions, would reduce temperatures by the year 2100 by about 0.173 degrees Celsius. He also notes that research suggests that of the 1.5 degree Celsius increase in temperatures since 1850 that mankind is responsible for only about half a degree.
Never mind the number of migratory birds killed every year by wind and solar power plants.
Meanwhile, Mark Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, writing in The Wall Street Journal, points out that one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of nonrecyclable plastic, while solar power requires even more cement, steel, glass and other metals, which require massive earth moving by fossil-fuel powered heavy equipment.
Is this really what we should be doing with our public lands? — TM
Cornel N says
Maan, you’re such a pretentious ignorant. All this bs about “despoil” of the land with solar and wind shows the level of intelligence or lack of it populates your tiny brain. Seriously? WTF are you referring at, when saying public land and public money being wasted on renewable energy. Do you own any renewable energy system or just speak out of your arse? According to people like you, we should have never left the caves, because by doing so we have messed up the Earth and killed so many animals. Wind power kills birds? Cars kill birds. Birds kill birds. How about the number of turkey birds killed every year in USA? Is that because of solar or wind power? What car are you driving? What food do you eat? What clothes do you wear? Aren’t they, somehow made by damaging the environment a bit? People like you keep this country in the Dark Ages. Find a nice cave and live in there! And get plenty of solar and wind for your brain ’cause it seems to be lacking a lot of aeration and vitamin D.
Cornel N says
Navada has millions and millions of acres of bare desert, where nothing grows and nobody gets to ever see it. Some animals might benefit from the shelter/shade provided by the solar panels. This is not Switzerland or Amazon! We, as a state, have so much to gain from doing this, but some idiots still think to the contrary. I bet that for you, all electric cars are utopian. They don’t exist! How is that possible? Huh?! Isn’t that against nature? An electric car is, also, bad for our environment, according to moronialistas like yourself. Fortunately, the ones agreeing with you are less every day. Did you vote for Reagan? The fool who took the solar panels of the White House, back in the 70’s? No wonder, we didn’t make it back to the Moon since the 60’s. You, probably think that too many wind generators might stop the Earth from rotating, right? Hahaha! Keep writing! You are hilarious.
NVCondor says
Shocker. TM is a shill for the fossil fuel industry?
We are at a tipping point as far as climate change is concerned. You don’t have to look up what some conservative think tank (oxymoron) says, just listen to the 99% climate scientists.
TM’s concerned with the aesthetics of our public lands, yet he doesn’t have a problem with mining or methane belching cattle on the same lands.
Renewable energy sources are our future. They represent new jobs and clean energy. Nevada could actually be an exporter of energy. That sounds like a win-win to me.
This is what we should be doing with our public lands. Sorry TM and the fossil fuel industry. It’s time to move out of the 19th century and into the 21st.
John Wankum says
I have read the “Editorial” of November 27, 2019 “Don’t despoil public lands with and solar” by Thomas Mitchell and have the following comments.
Upon review of the proposed Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019 I found that the primary sponsors in the House and Senate are both Republicans indicating bipartisan support of this legislation.
I was intrigued by the claim of carbon monoxide generated by wind and solar energy and searched the internet. The only process mentioned is using wind or solar to remove carbon dioxide by transforming it into carbon monoxide and ozone. This is not a proposal that is currently being taken seriously or within the scope of climate change discussion. The purpose of wind and solar power is to keep carbon dioxide from getting in the atmosphere in the first place.
I have also read Benjamin Zycher’s “The Trouble with ‘Renewable’ Energy” which is apparently the source for Mr. Mitchell’s criticism of solar power. Time and space do not allow a full discussion of Dr. Zycher’s claims regarding the economics of wind and solar power, including amount of land, construction materials, and other factors that are simply not relevant. At two cents per kilowatt hour for electricity from wind power, I am confident that the free market is choosing, and will continue to choose, renewable alternatives, while coal companies are deservedly going bankrupt. It is hard to imagine any power source that has done as much as coal to degrade the environment.
The real question is how much more environmental damage will be done by fossil fuels before the growing concentration of greenhouse gases is reversed. The Mitchell/Zycher articles are, in my opinion, useless impediments at best.