A couple years ago a little-noticed report called, “Beyond Carbon-Free: A Framework for Purpose-Led Renewable Energy Procurement and Development” was published by an energy company in Seattle, together with the Nature Conservancy and the National Audubon Society. It suggested that the goal of net-zero carbon emissions would require “massive areas of land for development,” perhaps “a footprint of 228,000 square miles – a land area greater than that of Wyoming and Colorado, combined.”
With a gift for understatement, the authors wrote that “This tremendous need for land poses significant land-use challenges, and the potential for unintended consequences on both local communities and natural habitats.” Oh well, the report said, “In today’s rapidly evolving energy landscape, this transition looks more achievable than ever.” Its writers were already aboard the federal plan to halt America’s use of oil and gas, and if that means covering rural areas with wind machines and solar panels, well, who needs Wyoming anyway?
Local officials have long understood the problems of renewable energy – especially the footprint required, always in rural areas. A $200 million solar project near Culpepper, Virginia finally had to give up because officials would not waive their local ordinance restricting solar panel installations to 300 acres. Voters there value their rural and agricultural history and culture and had no desire for a 1700-acre solar field to replace farms in order to provide power to distant cities.
What community chooses to be sacrificed for anyone’s national political agenda? Dozens of towns and counties in Kansas are gearing up for an extended controversy over a Department of Energy plan to acquire (by eminent domain if necessary) a 5-mile-wide, 780-mile-long “National Interest Transmission Corridor,” a series of power lines to connect wind and solar installations out West to the Midwest power grid. The new super-powerlines would cross much of Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana and at 5 miles wide would consume almost 4,000 square miles, apparently without the approval of states or counties. It is but one of at least a dozen such corridors the feds are planning.
Americans may say they really want to switch to renewables, but where should such massive installations be located? In whose backyard? In my view, historic rural communities surrounded by productive farmland are a poor choice for massive arrays of solar panels. And make no mistake – they need to be massive to make a dent in replacing the energy America gets from fossil fuel power plants.
When I was at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, our experts estimated that the solar panels required to power the entire City of Denver would cover at least two counties, clearly unrealistic. A similar power industry estimate said powering Metropolitan New York with solar panels would require covering an area as large as Arizona. Even though they have perhaps the best sun resource in the U.S., nobody ever asked the people of Arizona if they would sacrifice their State to benefit New York. In fact, wherever large solar installations are proposed, local opposition is fierce.
The Bureau of Land Management has decided it can help solve that problem by making vast stretches of
public lands available for leasing – not for oil and gas, but for solar projects. Giant solar projects, or as
BLM calls them, “utility-scale.” The agency has published its required Environmental Impact Statement, which proposes opening almost 32 million acres (50,000 square miles) across 11 western states for utility-scale solar projects. That’s equivalent to the entire State of New York, more than all the land in North Carolina or Alabama. In fact, 20 states and territories are smaller than 50,000 square miles.
As an aside, the specific uses of BLM land authorized by its governing statute, the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, do not include massive wind and solar installations. But no matter, the Administration’s agenda is to eliminate the use of oil and gas, the will of the people and their elected representatives notwithstanding.
The territory proposed for solar projects includes most of Nevada, giant swaths of Utah and Wyoming, southeast Oregon and southwest Idaho, and sections of Western Colorado that include much of Moffat, Rio Blanco, Garfield, and Mesa Counties. Nearly 600,000 acres in Colorado would be open to massive fields of solar panels, three times more than would be available in California.
These rural areas are not, of course, where all that renewable power would be needed or used. That’s why renewable advocates have always dreaded the accompanying need for powerlines – which they generally oppose. So, that’s why they must now rely on government power to take so much more land to build transmission lines to get that electricity to the giant cities that need it.
One might ask, why can’t they just build the wind and solar power systems near New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, and Houston if that’s where the power is needed? There is one simple reason the government cannot make that happen – it doesn’t own the land there.
Greg Walcher is president of the Natural Resources Group and author of “Smoking Them Out: The Theft of the Environment and How to Take it Back,” now in its second printing. A Western Colorado Native, he is a newspaper columnist, former head of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, and former President of Club 20. More information: www.GregWalcher.com
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AMAC or AMAC Action.
Bottom Line: What is more important — food for the country and rest of the world or fields of solar panels around the country where there is not enough electrical energy from these devices to totally provide for our nation’s energy needs. Current plants (coal and nuclear) need to be updated and are still essential for our energy needs. Rational scientists have already stated this, but the Left continue to mislead the ignorant that only solar and wind power is needed. The Left continue to fill their pockets with $$$$$ at the expense of the taxpayer.
Where are all the protectors of environment on that one, all the natives who were so opposed to the pipe line, Sierra club and wild life defenders, It is ok to destroy in the name of the renewable Who is making big buck?
It is great to have an intelligent, high level vocabulary – explaining and understanding things of a complex nature is the main benefit of clear speaking , clear communication. The title of the report this article revolves around. ” Beyond Carbon – Free : A Framework for Purpose – Led Renewable Energy Procurement and Development.” That wording is just a bit on the convoluted side Just enough to ask some straight questions about the matter. I would not say that title is as twisted as a corkscrew, but presents ideas that are not right to the point about the issue – that is How to build an energy system and where to build it. This idea of people sacrificing their land for the energy needs of others hundreds of miles away is not right. The whole matter of wind and solar energy replacing oil and coal and nuclear energy is not a sensible consideration. By all means go and develop some wind and solar energy – in proportion to it’s realistic benefit from it’s use , which is relatively small . It makes sense to consider all forms of energy being used in the right way ,in the right place, for the right reasons. National defense should always be a prime consideration when it comes to energy sources. Knowing the history of the second world war, and how the energy supplies contributed to the victory of good over evil will paint a clear picture of the importance of this energy issue. So, straight talk is a reflection of straight thinking and how the United States of America provides for energy ,for freedom , is a great incentive to make intelligent decisions about doing what is right to have the energy it needs for survival and prosperity, for the betterment of life everywhere.
This needs to become KNOWN to ALL Americans! These reports are “out” but no one reads them, the left-bought MSM will not report on this. If conservatives were trying to accomplish this, articles would be on every page of every newspaper in the USA. People cannot object until they know what will happen if they don’t.
What these dimwits do not seem to be thinking about is how to maintain their solar farms.
Those panels will wear out eventually and may be damaged before they reach their expected age of replacement. Where does the old panel go for recycling? Who reinstalls the new one?
Any other project would require forethought but solar panels …not so much
One of the real questions I have on solar panels is that they are black to absorb the sun to generate electricity. Being a dark color, how much thermal radiation is given off, or in other terms how much heat do they generate towards global warming????? No one wants to talk about that.
A lost of discussion has been about how cities are warmer because of all of the pavement, but I ask, what about solar panels.
Also for windmills, when you take energy out of the natural prevailing winds, what is the impact on warming/cooling of the earth by moving the wind which warms & cools different ways.
Astonishing that safe, cheap, clean, responsibly sustainable nuclear energy is never mentioned! Could it be because it wouldn’t require siphoning tax-payer funds to drive their exorbitant, costly energy programs???
Those folks in charge never learn. Solar and wind turbines are a big joke. Drill and pump in West Virginia and make WV great again. Folks I knew who did the solar thing are very disappointed and now have fewer dollars in the bank. This is terrible, destroying precious land and causing the death on wildlife. Wildlife will have a great time is all of us humans would just die. We couldn’t live without the wildlife roaming and spreading wealth to help us. Think about it for a few minutes.
Want to conserve America’s land——-stop building in new undeveloped land and rebuild where the land has already been developed. REUSE-RECYCLE -REDEVELOP abandoned buildings.
maybe this should tell you that you are the problem and the country/planet are over populated and something needs to be done to correct the problem. the rich and famous along with their politician buddies decided to cut down the of yous out there. covid was one way but didn’t do enough. so more pandemics and civil upheaval will be another way to get rid of some of yous. i don’t know about you but i do not like some rich sob and his politicos deciding i need to die so they can keep on with their criminal preversions. how about yous? you ready for “them” to arbitrarily decide your fate?
I hope when Trump gets in there he stops this foolhardy, stupid, evil project… Causing more pollution than it prevents…and destroying half the country…
Typical waste: these states are all about taking the money but always avoid implementation. Look at Yucca Mountain: Harry Reid bragged about it, about the jobs, but when it was ready to do the job it was designed to do, fought against it! These little prohects aleays end up being a “bridge to nowhere”- remember that one?
The massive solar arrays are an abomination and an incredible waste of money that can be laid waist in seconds by a passing hail storm or a tornado which may spawn the first as well. This has already happened on a large scale here in the states. These are forced on the public without input by appointed Federal officials and okayed by bought off Congressmen that happen to squeeze in an energy lobbyist along side the Israeli baby killing promoting lobbyists.
These “farms” are just as worthless as are the massive wind farms near where I live whose tall towers feature windmills that at any one time feature a good 40% that have failed and are no longer spinning with gorgeous trails of black oil streaming down their towers from failed turbines.
Im 70 and remember a time when we had affordable REAL cars and trucks and went weeks without seeing a nebulizer stuck in the mouths of entitled little brats. Whats the deal there?
And, one hail storm takes them all out. Or wind or tornado or hurricane.
Instead of NetZero where the power produced on one’s own private land equals the power consumption why not create statewide governed co-ops where a house and backyard are fully maximized to create power in creative ways. NetZero should be the minimum not maximum goal. Extra power produced as part of a state sized co-op could be split with the co-op and stored as excess is created. Crypto mining farms and industrial AI demand increasing amounts of energy. Instead of open spaces put it on city rooftops as shingles everywhere and backyards as walls and panels, maybe artificial trees. Don’t darken the skies completely only over heat islands.
“There is one simple reason the government cannot make that happen – it doesn’t own the land there.”
Constituionally, it Doesn’t (can’t) own all that land it claims to either. Additionally, placing solar farms far outside of the load centers is very inefficient. If the Feds can claim land they constitutionally can’t own, they can require new construction within the cities to include solar panels. (That’s not constitutional either; nor am I suggesting it’s a good idea, just that it would be a less bad idea.)
wind turbines kill our bird geese and duck while migrating other native birds solar panel are destructiove to trees and wild life and can be dstroyed by hail,tornates and other weather conditions so these are not reliabe enegy sources.
Heaven forbid the big cities should have to sacrifice for their own needs. Let’s turn the rest of the country into an ugly set of power lines and solar farms—that’s the answer. There should be a law that all transmission lines have to go underground— that’ll stop ‘em dead.
We need to stop spending trillions on going to the moon and mars and taking joy rides around the globe in outer space. What if we put 10 solar panels on everyone’s roof. If every house in America had at least 10 solar panels on their roofs how would that effect our power grids? Oh what a stupid idea you say. But all our houses have roofs that could be put to use without taking any land or harming the wild life. Of course it’d be expensive but unlike the trillions spent to go to mars solar panels could have a return on the money spent. What would we do with the waste – maybe we could send it to mars or maybe we can figure out how to safely recycle them and by doing that we might actually figure out how to recycle other things. And maybe we can develop roofing materials that have the same capabilities as solar panels. Think about it, your whole roof could also be a big solar panel.
Utterly idiotic. Instead, build a nuclear plant.
Solar Panels & Wind Generators are two of the MOST INEFFICIENT Ways known to man to generate electricity. CO2 feeds TREES which in turn make OXYGEN. SO why are we NOT planting more trees instead of WASTING TAX $$$$$$$ on INEFFICIENT POWER GENERATION???? WKE UP PEOPLE you are being FLEECED! For those that are not aware The Government required all coal fired power plants to install scrubbers to remove all particulates from the stacks so that the only thing seen from the stacks is steam on a cold day, and this was back in 1999 on.
Just a thought – Could Elon, NASA, or someone find a way to have the solar panels in space, instead? Somehow it seems bad policy to damage so much habitat. Even the desert teems with life, though not often seen.
Wrong & add competition for energy to cut costs