13 ms·
California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms
- mifreewil 8y ago(Deleted)
- aaronblohowiak 8y agoIn USA local authority is derived from the state, so ca legislature can wipe out the county laws with some small legislation. Ianal
- almost_usual 8y agoProbably not a good precedent to set.
- nsnick 8y agoIt's a great precedent to set. First solar then high density zoning.
- dpe82 8y agoHappens all the time, actually. It's called preemption.
- vidarh 8y agoNeither is a blanket ban. A precedent of striking down blanket bans and tell them to instead actually set out criteria that would block the specific things that does not address their concerns would be quite good. E.g. if their concern is the risk ruining views, then ban construction that ruins views, don't ban things you think may ruin views whether or not they actually do, while not banning a near infinite number of things that also might ruin views; if your concern is dust, then require plans and documentation that you're taking sufficient measures to prevent it, don't ban just some of the things that may or may not cause the problem while leaving the door wide open for other projects that would cause the same problem just because people aren't pursuing those other kind of projects right now. [I keep fantasizing about "acceptance tests" for laws and regulations: Too often laws and regulations are set out based on totally untested hypotheses about their effects, but without any kind of process to review efficacy or side-effects, and with an inherent political cost to revisit an issue; imagine if all laws and regulations had to set out intended goals and define an objective set of criteria to measure if they meet the goals, and would automatically be suspended if they do not have the intended effects or have sufficiently large negative side-effects; it wouldn't stop bad laws, but it would at least document what the actual intended direct effects are]
- adrianN 8y agoI'm sure you can find experts in writing laws so that they're technically not a blanket ban, but it's still impossible to fulfill all requirements while still being profitable.
- api 8y agoSure it is. NIMBYs are totally out of control. The time is long past for intervention.
- ngngngng 8y agoWe set it all the time over here in Utah. Some heavy tourist cities wanted to ban plastic bags at grocery stores. The state swooped in and made it illegal to ban plastic bags in the entire state. The "free market" has to decide if we want them or not.
- obtaniumstool 8y agoThat's one of those ironic things that conservative state legislatures do. They're all for small government until a liberal city passes a law they don't like.
- epistasis 8y agoI think it's a great precedent, when branches of governments abuse their authority a different power must step in.
- burlesona 8y agoMore like a desperately needed precedent.
- admax88q 8y agoNIMBYism strikes again.
- rhegart 8y agoWide open rural land, little environmental or people impact, some of the best consistent sun in the world
- acidburnNSA 8y agoThus begin the challenges of ramping up distributed low-density intermittent energy harvesting by a factor of 40x.
- hyperbovine 8y agoDo you live in this community? My guess is no. And that’s the crux of the issue, though the article buries the lede somewhat.
- pixl97 8y agoRight do you live in a community that loses mountains to coal mining? That loses the coast to sea level rise? That has a nuclear facility in their back yard? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
- yostrovs 8y agoI live near a nuke plant. It pollutes about as much as my BBQ grill. It's quiet, the birds like it, and the fishing in the adjacent lake is excellent. Some people don't like its shape but I'm used to it and the steam rising is kind of charming.
- tyu1000 8y agoDestroying a virgin desert ecosystem with an industrial installation is not little environmental impact.
- pixl97 8y agoLighting the atmosphere on fire is not a little environmental impact either. We have to choose to loose something to live a modern lifestyle.
- zzleeper 8y agoWow.. when I thought NIMBYism in California couldn't get any worst. From here: https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board-to-prohibit-renewable-energy-development-in-key-desert-areas/ https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board... " some residents say the prohibition will protect communities from potential health hazards caused by blowing dust, which increases when pristine desert land is disturbed by construction. They also sited the protection of scenic views, carbon sequestration from desert vegetation, and preservation of habitat and wildlife as reasons to prohibit large solar development." Sure, let's have more coal from Nevada instead.
- philipov 8y ago"sited the protection of scenic views..." that would have made a good pun, if it weren't instead the copy-editors just not catching the mistake.
- stcredzero 8y agoThank you. Bugged the heck out of me!
- stcredzero 8y agoWow.. when I thought NIMBYism in California couldn't get any worst. NIMBYism in California has been at the level where one generation basically doesn't give a damn about the subsequent generations. This fits in with the pattern.
- JohnJamesRambo 8y agoThey’ve ramped it up to NIMC.
- drdeadringer 8y agoWhat does the 'C' stand for? County? Country? City?
- 8y ago
- jayd16 8y ago>[...] solar projects proposed along or near the highway would ruin the pristine desert landscapes [...] Ironic.
- burfog 8y agoIt makes sense if the locals benefit from tourists driving down those roads to observe the scenery. A place without roads may be even more pristine, but it also might as well not exist because normal people can't go there.
- youeseh 8y agoI suppose a divider with solar panels in it that also provide shade to driving cars would be out of the question.
- killion 8y agoIt took me a while to find out why locals were saying solar farms cause dust storms. The locals claim solar farms destabilize the soil. Dust isn’t in the interest of the energy producer because it lowers efficiency so my assumption is that they would do everything to limit dust. I guess I’m surprised that the LA Times would publish a claim like that without comment or caveat.
- zenexer 8y agoThey’re just reporting what each side is saying without arguing against their claims. They leave it to the reader to make of it what they will. In my personal opinion, this is how reporting should be. Don’t do my thinking for me and don’t lead me in a particular direction. I doubt most people actually believe dust has anything to do with it. They don’t want these infrastructure projects near them, plain and simple.
- torpfactory 8y agoThere are plenty of readers who aren't sophisticated enough to judge for themselves. This is exactly analogous to the vaccine debate. Journalists can and should add context where one side's argument is not supported by evidence.
- almost_usual 8y agoHave you ever seen any heavy equipment operate before in a dry area? It churns up dust, this isn’t rocket science guys. It’s so obvious you shouldn’t need evidence.
- hopler 8y agoHow far does the does spread? How long until it settles?
- almost_usual 8y agoThis is a combine in a dry soybean field. https://youtu.be/PKBENzzEluY https://youtu.be/PKBENzzEluY Now imagine a lot more vehicle traffic in a desert. I know lumber companies will spray water on dirt roads to keep the dust down, not sure if that’s a viable option out in a desert though.
- charliebrownau 8y agoComifornia is heading to total collapse thou left infection This is an example , why NEVER to vote for the Dems/LEFT
- remarkEon 8y agoWhat's the useful life of modern solar panels? Will these solar farms have to be decommissioned or retrofit in the future, and will we have to deal with a bunch of toxic material disposal say 30 years from now? I guess it certainly seems like a no-brainer to build these things in deserts with consistent sunlight, but I'm just curious if there are externalities we're not thinking of yet because we haven't had to.
- theandrewbailey 8y agoFrom what I've read, solar panels slowly decrease to 80-85% of their rated output after about 20 years, then stop decreasing. Even 30 year old panels seem fine[0]. [0] https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/testing-a-thirty-year-old-photovoltaic-module https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/testing-a-thirt...
- Janeman544 8y agoThey are pretty much useless without government funding and subsidies.
- toomanybeersies 8y agoWhen projects like these are planned, they consider the entire lifecycle of the project, including end of life.
- rurounijones 8y agoPeople said the asme thing with Nuclear. Just because they say they are doesn't mean they actually are.
- jessaustin 8y agoWhen a solar facility is decommissioned you have a bunch of junk, much of which can be recycled. When a nuclear facility is decommissioned you have a bunch of radioactive nuclear waste.
- roywiggins 8y ago
- User23 8y agoWind power is routinely deployed in an environmentally irresponsible way. https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-...
- purplezooey 8y agoGet Off My Land Dag Nabbit
- C1sc0cat 8y agoFalmer Palmers American Cousin
- OldHand2018 8y agoI gave this a little bit of thought. I agree with the decision, but not at all for the reason that San Bernardino County cites. We have (and California/Western States especially) drastically reduced per capita water consumption over the past few decades. Almost nobody has noticed. This same approach needs to happen with electricity and other forms of energy. We shouldn't build any net new large-scale generation facilities (replacements are ok). To really make a difference, we must consume less. Consuming the same or more is no longer an option, even if it renewable or carbon-free. Thoughts?
- aplummer 8y ago> reduced per capita water consumption Immigration though, and also electric cars etc will need more energy.
- djakjxnanjak 8y agoNo, generating less solar and wind will mean burning more natural gas and coal. Fossil fuels don’t get charged for their pollution externalities so their price on the energy market is artificially low, and demand artificially high. Also, you just claimed that consuming more energy is not an option with making any arguments to support that claim. In fact, consuming more energy is an option every household has, and if we ban solar and wind then that energy will come from fossil fuels.
- acidburnNSA 8y agoWe could also split more atoms, which is carbon free and has really small impact in terms of land, mining, carbon, death, pollution, etc.
- mikeash 8y agoIf it’s renewable and carbon-neutral, why isn’t it an option to consume more?
- kccqzy 8y agoI guess an argument could be that the distribution of electricity still costs money. For example, if households use more electric power, we can either increase the electric current or the voltage. For the former we may have to replace transmission lines to be thicker; for the latter we may have to reconfigure or perhaps rebuild the local transformers. In either case, there are other costs involved that do not involve the cost of electricity itself.
- higginsc 8y agoIt's a fucking desert.
- tyrust 8y agoI don't agree with the decision, either, but a desert is a biome that deserves respect like any other.
- cf498 8y agoI hadnt heard this point of view yet. I never saw a desert as something worth preserving, quite the contrary actually. Afforestation projects to green deserts seem absolutely wonderful. Why do you think its a biome worth preserving? Its places hostile to life. Are there negative effects caused by a lack of deserts? edit: In case anyone else wonders, there would be a negative effect, as deserts are net carbon sinks.
- zenexer 8y agoI’m no wildlife expert, but aren’t there organisms that have evolved to thrive in deserts?
- roninghost 8y agoDeserts hve unique fauna and vegetation. That alone is a good reason. Also deserts regulate the climate of adjacent and far away regions. For example the Amazon jungle is feed by the Sahara desert [1] [1] https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants/ https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-...
- stuart78 8y agoDeserts are often teeming with life. The term refers to rainfall, not population. There are plants and animals equally deserving of protection, and it is worth protecting for the same reason any other biome is. If you look for beauty and balance there you might find it. Covering them with solar panels disrupts the environment and displaces it’s inhabitants. https://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/deserts https://www.worldwildlife.org/habitats/deserts
- gesman 8y agoLawmakers want their own share and haven't been given one.
- jessaustin 8y agoYeah it's like the developers don't even know how to lobby. They should take a lesson from e.g. Foxconn, who had everyone important in Wisconsin wrapped around their finger.
- droithomme 8y agoSo the beautiful desert landscapes can not be sullied with these solar panel eyesores. Fair enough. We should just put the sustainable solar power that these same residents want access to on arable farm land instead?!?
- jadell 8y agoThat's a great idea. I suggest putting it on the arable farmland that supplies their communities. Let them figure out how to get crops from the desert.
- BurningFrog 8y agoStrange that such an industrial use isn't seen as benefitting the locals. Or at least not enough of those in power.
- threeseed 8y ago> But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause They can't possibly be serious. How much damage could solar or wind even cause ?
- acidburnNSA 8y agoActually a lot, especially at scale. Solar PV is not as bad but wind is a significant threat to hoary bats as a species and to large threatened birds like eagles, owls, etc. Yes cats kill 1000x more birds than current wind but they kill swallows and robins and stuff, not damned eagles. Mining and fabricating the amount of low-density energy harvesters and storage systems needed to fill in the intermittency also requires dozens of times more materials, land, and waste than the major carbon-free competition (nuclear).
- tyu1000 8y agoA ton. I was involved in the successful opposition against a wind farm project in Canada that was proposed for just north of a major internationally protected migratory bird habitat[1]. Habitat destruction is just a big an environmental problem, and actually probably bigger, than climate change in North America. We are down to less than ten percent of native grasslands remaining in our continent which is the biggest slow-motion environmental disaster that doesn't get talked about much. What's the point of renewable energy if not to help protect natural areas like the ones being proposed for development? https://leaderpost.com/business/energy/chaplin-lake-wind-turbine-project-rejected-over-concerns-for-birds https://leaderpost.com/business/energy/chaplin-lake-wind-tur...
- tanilama 8y ago> ruin the pristine desert landscapes that make the area so attractive. OK, so this is pretty much another incident of property value protection?
- jadell 8y ago> “These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities. But they are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable energy projects would cause,” Fairchild told the supervisors. “Once destroyed, these landscapes can never be brought back.” Because climate change won't destroy precious fragile landscapes? Okay, here's my deal: you get to keep your precious desert, but as long as you oppose local renewable energy, you can only subsist off the crops, livestock and other resources you can grow in the desert. Why should you benefit from the rest of us sacrificing our own landscapes to save ourselves when you aren't willing to do the same?
- golemotron 8y agoSolar and wind will never be enough. https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/ https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-th...
- jadell 8y agoIs your point that we should stop building any solar or wind? Because if that is not your point, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
- acidburnNSA 8y agoThe point of the article is that unreliable energy like wind and solar with 35% and 25% capacity factors is extremely challenging to scale beyond those numbers. Large-scale low-carbon systems that are 24/7 reliable regardless of how windy or sunny it is may be more effective. Lots of people are promoting 50/50 mixes of intermittent/unreliable renewables + nuclear. The author of the article thinks the renewables are problematic and our money would be better spent just going for 24/7 reliable clean energy sources.
- Arn_Thor 8y agoThe whole takeaway from that is "it's difficult and I, the author, doesn't think it'll work because it's difficult". With lots of hand-picked examples of shortcomings of implementation loosely collected into a semicoherent justification for nuclear energy. I'm all for nuclear energy, if it can be done safely. (The cost might be too high for it to be commercially viable, but if it's worth doing the state can subsidize for the good of humanity). But that blog post does not succeed in making any sort of case for why solar and wind won't be enough.
- niftich 8y agoSan Bernardino County is home to the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility [1], which is a mirror-focused solar thermal power plant. It generates a lot of glare and is controversial for its impact on animals. It also took several years to ramp up to its promised output. Solar panels don't have problem with glare, but the landscape of the county has large viewsheds of sloping treeless desert, so any facility will have a large visual impact. It also disturbs the ground and replaces the desert scrub with actual bare ground, which is more susceptible to dust, and dust is a problem that plant operators try to combat [2], but have long accepted as an inconvenient reality of siting in the desert. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility [2] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7274289 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7274289
- JKCalhoun 8y ago> Ivanpah Solar Power Facility Blew my mind when I drove past that (on the way to Las Vegas?). I swear it appeared as though the air was incandescing at the top of the tower where all the sun's rays were focused. Def something out of a Sci-Fi film....
- almost_usual 8y agoYou truly don’t understand how blinding it is until you drive past it. I didn’t realize it was in San Bernardino. I saw it driving from Las Vegas to SF. Remember it being near Zzyzx which reminded me of Sonic Youth music video.
- dr01d 8y agoBirds literally burst into flames in the air.
- ktsmith 8y agoThere's the Crescent Dunes Solar Plant outside of Tonopah, NV which is also on the way to Las Vegas. It's further away from the road I believe but it's equally as blinding. The first time I drove past it I was shocked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Pr...
- trimbo 8y agoWill they accept nuclear reactors though? If you're going to ban these, then offer a non-fossil-fuel alternative that could work.
- benj111 8y ago"The policy approved by the supervisors prohibits utility-oriented renewable energy projects — defined as projects that would mostly serve out-of-town utility customers, rather than local power needs" Well they don't seem to be banned. And seemingly they would be in favour of renewables for their own use. So disconnect them from the grid, add renewables and battery storage, that would seem to please everyone?
- RealityVoid 8y agoFrankly,this level of selfishness is astounding to me. Me, me, me, only for me, I got mine so screw the rest.
- epistasis 8y agoWelcome to every single planning meeting in California politics. And also many other places too, but California enables absolutely tiny groups of people to delay any construction or change.
- acidburnNSA 8y agoTheir only remaining nuclear generation station is being closed down early because people in California don't like it regardless of its reliable carbon-free energy [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Closure_in_2024%E2%80%932025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Clos...
- epistasis 8y agoWeird, I thought that Wikipedia page used to cite the costs of retrofitting Diablo Canyon's cooling to move away from once through water, but I don't see it there anymore. The history of that page shows scars of manipulating the narrative, but I stil didn't find it. Here's a PDF from PG&E that puts the cost at $2.6B: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/powerplants/diablo_canyon/docs/rc_dc_pres032811.pdf https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/c... These days you can buy a lot of solar, wind, and storage for $2.6B, so I'm not sure that closing the reactor is merely "not liking" nuclear. At this point we get more carbon free energy from solar and storage for the same amount of money, so if one is concerned about carbon it makes more sense to chug it down and build newer cheaper infrastructure.
- crb002 8y agoWind I can see, towers can be kind of obnoxious. Solar? I hope the land owners sue for unjust taking of their farm rights to harvest solar without compensation.
- franzwong 8y agoPerhaps we should think about how to promote renewable power, e.g. new business model which gives direct benefit (may be short term) to the people.
- openloop 8y agoThis makes sense how?
- benj111 8y ago"where existing solar projects are seen by many as eyesores that destroy desert ecosystems and fuel larger dust storms" My intuition would suggest that renewable energy would take energy out of the system (wind power at least). Reducing dust storms. So are they correct? Is it climate change being attributed to the cure?
- ralph84 8y agoLots of commenters ITT who have obviously never actually been to the California desert. Paving the California desert with solar panels would be no less of an environmental tragedy than the clear cutting of the giant redwoods or the flooding of the Hetch Hetchy Valley.
- tempestn 8y agoCan you explain why? I can see how it would be undesirable to locals, but clear cutting redwoods would release massive amounts of stored carbon, whereas solar panels in the desert would seem to do the opposite.
- waste_monk 8y agoThe desert isn't a blank sandscape. There's a whole ecosystem of desert plants and creatures, not to mention the solar panels killing migratory birds.
- azernik 8y agoThis gets to a conflict of values between different environmentalists - a lot of people are willing to accept local environmental damage in order to counter climate change.
- hyperbovine 8y agoThe people willing to accept “local” environmental change are not local, are they? Let’s be honest, coastal liberals want to build solar in the desert so they can charge their Teslas with a clear conscience. The people actually living there resent this. It’s the same dynamic that’s been playing out for over a century between urban and rural CA as regards water.
- pixl97 8y agoAt the end of the day someone gets the powerplant in their backyard.
- scarejunba 8y agoCalifornia bleeds its lakes dry and sullies the landscape with weapons-grade sprawl. Environmentalists, look elsewhere. California is evidence that all principles cease to exist when faced with a modest cheque.
- newnewpdro 8y agoFor those questioning the objections and criticizing the reporting for not vetting them, a simple search found some interesting relevant info: https://phys.org/news/2009-03-dark-side-solar-power.html https://phys.org/news/2009-03-dark-side-solar-power.html FWIW I own property in the Mojave near Joshua Tree National Park. I am fairly pro-solar, but can at least appreciate the need for a more thorough evaluation of how these large-scale installations will affect the environment. It seems prudent to me that the county put on the brakes for now until we have better answers. It may turn out that these solar installations can actually have more positive effects than negative, though it might only be possible with additional steps like covering the ground throughout the area with something like a perforated tarp. I wouldn't be surprised if such a tarp could be used to trap moisture in the ground and grow strawberries or something between the panels through the perforations where water and crops may pass. Right now my property is covered with millions of wild desert flowers. Many people think all deserts are just some barren sandy landscape devoid of life. I know I did before owning a piece of it. It's not the case, there's a lot of life and it's a fragile ecosystem. Today I was photographing dozens of honey bees and a few butterflies feasting on acres of flowers in the Mojave. Edit: I uploaded some of today's photos to imgur for the HN crowd if interested https://imgur.com/a/blZbs5e https://imgur.com/a/blZbs5e
- Wyndtroy2012 8y agoYay! So many beautiful and fragile places will be saved now! People don't realize that our local deserts are "biodiversity hotspots" and there are thousands of species plants and animals relying on that desert to remain intact and in balance. Exactly like Amazon rain forests and our oceans, you can't just clearcut or poison them and expect everything to go along just fine. People may look at a dry lake and think "dead wasteland" because they don't understand that fairy shrimp and different plant seeds lie dormant in that soil for years until there is water, then they all explode into life, providing food and water for local critters as well as migrating birds, etc. Mother Nature did not make a single square foot of wasteland.
- C1sc0cat 8y agoOh so its Nuclear power for San Bernardino then :-)
- FerosMorgen 8y agoRednecks trumpites in California too. Not surprised.
- Griceraae50100 8y agoLucerne dry lake isn’t right now. Isn’t Sen Feinstein D-CA financially involved in desert solar projects?
- lewis500 8y agoThis is the type of decision-making the authors of the Green New Deal need to grapple with. E.g., the Green New Deal calls for high speed rail everywhere. But when you actually try to build HSR people in affected communities file lawsuits and force decisions that increase the cost, slow down trains and delay construction. For the Green New Deal to actually happen, the federal government would need to override local decision-making.