Tundra and desert arguably are the most-sensitive ecosystems to be found on land, with their plant life highly susceptible to disturbance. So essentially "clear cutting" huge swatches of desert for solar factories is bad enough. Draining the important underground aquifers is worse.
"It is not in the public interest for BLM (Bureau of Land Management) to approve plans of development for water-cooled solar energy projects in the arid basins of southern Nevada, some of which are already over-appropriated," Jon Jarvis, director of the Park Service's Pacific West Region, says.
National Park Service hydrologists say nearly 16.3 billion gallons of consumption has been proposed by applications in the Amargosa Valley alone. That water cannot be replaced.
Nevada officials say the basin can support only half that amount. Rushing to approve huge solar projects without proper environmental review is dangerous. Clearing the desert and draining the aquifers is worse.
Solar power is a good thing. But not when destruction of fragile ecosystems is the price.
3 comments:
Explain the environmental disaster and why solar plants need so much water. What if the water can be recovered and re-used in the process? Also, photovoltaic plants shouldn't need any water at all.
Photovoltaic are horrible for the environment. They achieve higher efficiencies only if cost of manufacture is not included. For large scale solar power, "passive" solar, IE water vapor or other highly expansive gases are currently the only practical solution.
The idea that large quantities of fresh water need to be consumed smacks of anti-solar rhetoric to me. Every passive solar system I have seen deployed for home use required a minimal amount of fresh water, with nearly all of it being recycled throught he system again and again.
A better focus for cutting water use would be agriculture. The vast majority of the water use in Arizona and Nevada (yes, by far outweighing Vegas even by square mile) goes to SPRINKLERS. Why are we growing thirsty crops in the middle of the desert?
Even if we're going to do that, why not use modern ground and sub-ground, or at least "mega droplet" spray heads to minimize evaporation? Those tall, multi-wheeled crop irrigation systems spray mist and water 15 feet into the air where over 24% of it evaporates back into the air without ever reaching the crops.
Photovoltaic are horrible for the environment. They achieve higher efficiencies only if cost of manufacture is not included. For large scale solar power, "passive" solar, IE water vapor or other highly expansive gases are currently the only practical solution.
The idea that large quantities of fresh water need to be consumed smacks of anti-solar rhetoric to me. Every passive solar system I have seen deployed for home use required a minimal amount of fresh water, with nearly all of it being recycled throught he system again and again.
A better focus for cutting water use would be agriculture. The vast majority of the water use in Arizona and Nevada (yes, by far outweighing Vegas even by square mile) goes to SPRINKLERS. Why are we growing thirsty crops in the middle of the desert?
Even if we're going to do that, why not use modern ground and sub-ground, or at least "mega droplet" spray heads to minimize evaporation? Those tall, multi-wheeled crop irrigation systems spray mist and water 15 feet into the air where over 24% of it evaporates back into the air without ever reaching the crops.
Post a Comment