A typically thoughtful piece. I too appreciate Sammy Roth's work, despite disagreeing with him on his conclusions fairly regularly. Chief among those conclusions is that given our energy demands we need to make some distasteful sacrifices, but those sacrifices seem not to include limiting the amount of power we use for things like bitcoin mining, or spending the money to refit our cities so that they consume less net energy. (Replacing stepdown valves on water mains with microturbines, for instance.) Somehow the climate crisis is a crisis when we're discussing paving public lands for solar, but not when we're talking about actually affecting people's lives in cities.
I stand corrected! Great piece about the Joshua tree that I must have missed when it came out. Thanks, Chris. And, yes, I think part of the problem is the prevailing notion that we can just keep building more power plants (of the "clean" or "dirty" kind), and that there are no hard limits to how much power we can generate/consume. But there are limits -- or there should be.
Regarding the BLM’s solar EIS, it seems to me the big untold story is that most of the land the BLM is making off-limits to solar is not to protect cultural or natural resources. From the maps of southeast Utah, it’s clear that the real motivation is to eliminate conflicts with oil and gas development. This rewards the oil companies’ strategy of leasing every last acre of available land, most of which will never be drilled, in order to slow the energy transition. Of course, in SE Utah, there are many places that aren’t suitable for solar development due to the extensive cultural resources of the area. But to basically say that every-last acre of land leased (and in many cases already disturbed by) oil companies seems like an unreasonable limitation on solar development. For example, east of Bluff there’s a substation, surrounded by relatively flat land that has already been partially disturbed by past oilfield development. Great place for a solar facility…but would be off limits if the EIS is finalized with the current maps.
Yes, lots to think about. A few observations come right to mind:
Parking lot solar has an Achille's heal. It costs $5/W installed vs. $1.25/W for solar in a field. So an extra $140 Billion for the 44,000 MW mentioned. And typically produces 30% less kWh over a year, and that's more intensely at mid-day. The extra costs come from the supporting structures with longer spans, and labor to work up high, and then digging around in parking lots vs. trenching fields, and making sure wiring is such that no bozos can get into it. That $5/W cost is a recent one for the CO Front Range. So Cal doesn't have snow loads like they do, but I'm sure there is some earthquake bracing needed, and instead of the delicate structures for arrays in solar fields, it's gotta be built with concrete piers to be crashed into and not tip over on the civilians. (Though yes, there would be some transmission not needed.)
A while back, I looked at the EIS for this SunZia line alternatives. I seem to recall the route along I-10 then went right over about 300 homes or something, not completely benign. There were four other alternatives. One was rejected because a tower would have been in a center pivot field or something. So yeah, it seems lame to have it end up in that San Pedro Canyon. But last year in NM I did go hug one of the wind turbines in one of Pattern Energy's wind farms there. I do have solar on my house but just being "net zero" isn't enough.
Thanks Jonathan for your solar article, very well done, and I appreciate that you avoided focusing on a theoretically simply answer to a complex problem. I have read elsewhere that in many areas, in particularly the mid-west, local opposition is being generated with funds from the oil and gas sector, and its captured political component. This seems to be reflected in the agencies deferral to areas only theoretically suitable for oil and gas development.
You like to be an optimist. I tend to be a realist (but oftentimes realism looks a lot like pessimism).
The battle to decarbonize the global energy system is not going to be won or lost in Rico or Silverton.
The battle is going to be won or lost in China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh and a dozen other developing nations.
What is the population of Silverton? About 600. What is the population of Lagos? Twenty million plus!
I assume you are familiar with the Canadian scientist and polymath Vaclav Smil and his extensive work on all things related to energy? Smil recently issued a short report titled 'Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon is a Highly Unlikely Outcome.'
Smil, who accepts that climate change is a serious global issue that needs to be addressed, works with the numbers and the numbers don’t add up. To attain Net Zero at 50 in a quarter of a century (a single human generation) will be a Herculean task requiring the global mobilization of all our resources. That isn’t going to happen because the people who rule us would rather spend the effort and money on other things (like waging war and producing weapons).
All past energy transitions (biomass to coal; coal to oil; oil to natural gas) have been additive. That is, the economy continued to use large amounts of wood and charcoal when transitioning to coal and the same when transitioning from coal to oil and gas. This will be the first energy transition in human history in which we will transition to a new energy regime (renewables) while at the same time aggressively working to eliminate an antecedent primary energy source. This is going to be quite a trick when one considers that coal, oil and gas currently supply slightly more than 80% of global energy consumption. And we will attempt to pull off this wishful thinking while the global economy and population continue to grow at exponential rates.
But the hard fact is that any successful transition to a renewable energy economy is going to require a wholesale reinvention in how we live our lives.
The Salina (KS) based Land Institute, in addition to its primary mission of advancing the science of perennial agriculture, has had their staff look into what this transition might entail. In the Fall 2018 issue of The Land Report, Fred Iutzi wrote the following:
“If we were to cobble together a hypothetical sustainable, minimally prosperous country…, we would have the nutritional pathway of Eritrea; a sanitation pathway that hasn’t yet been demonstrated, but where Tajikistan is the closest fit; the median income and energy use pathways of Moldova; a health pathway that hasn’t been demonstrated, but where Vietnam is the closest to filling; the secondary education pathway of Sri Lanka; the equality pathway of Ethiopia; the full employment pathway of Rwanda; and pathways to democratic governance and to overall life satisfaction that have not yet been demonstrated by any country. Notice much about this list? Not much Global North on it. We will need degrowth as a planetary civilization overall, and we will especially need degrowth here in the rich countries to make it possible for our southern neighbors to climb out of the colonial trench.”
Eritrea, Tajikistan, Moldova, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, and Rwanda? Why did Iutzi select these nations and not others? Who knows, but the point is that all these countries have per capital energy consumptions well below what we consume here in the U.S. How many Americans are going to willingly step up to the plate to adapt this program? But Iutzi is close to the truth because any renewable energy economy is going to be an energy lean economy; much leaner than what we are now used to. With that will come a much reduced standard of living (as least as we traditionally understand the concept).
Only by a radical scaling back of global energy use (Iutzi’s degrowth) will the transition to a renewable energy future have any chance of success. As I tell my friends when we discuss this issue, are you prepared to live a life similar to the Old World Amish of Lancaster County PA? Not many find that a prospect they would gladly embrace.
In the big scheme of things, what happens in Boron CA is a gnat on the hind end of an elephant!
Strange, isnt it? That there is never much if any acknowledgement that in order for energy transition to be successful - this "excellent capitalistic" society of ours would actually have to make sacrifices! The thing is - not everyone can or maybe will be able to afford electric vehicles - which of course means those of us (!) who are unable to need to continue driving our gas vehicles. Now that wouldnt be so bad IF so many of these vehicles werent SUVs and trucks - large gas guzzlers (no matter how economical they supposedly are). The quantity of these huge vehicles being driven in URBAN ares! Thats just one little thing. Then there are all of the OTHER absolute necessities. Must have new/current cellphones - vacations to exotic (or not) places. Think about the holiday flights & driving trips - all must-have necessities! I could go on - and on. Think about what our children have been and are being taught to expect! Certainly, NOT to get along with less - but to have more than their parents did.
Those of us far from the upper levels of "society" - most of us - already limit their driving and likely, many of these "necessities" in order to just survive.
I think Jonathan's thoughts regarding solar panels on parking lots, big box stores etc are a great idea. But then, I'm sure there would be pushback to that too. Because thats just what we do now - disagree - no matter what.
Another notable and readable article, Jonathan. I have a little to add concerning the Joshua tree question. Personally, I am really not that concerned about the cutting down of 4,000 Joshua trees – there are many millions growing throughout “my” Mojave Desert. My concern would be for the many animals that depend on the native vegetation for survival. And for the soil and the destruction of the viewability of the desert landscape. To my way of thinking there is a pure beauty, in the untouched natural desert landscape.
From my perch in the San Gabriel Mountains, I look across the valley and see the area of the Boron mines and the proposed solar array that you write about. I guess, if the project goes forward, I will see a blinding reflection from hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of solar cells placed on the desert floor. That won’t be too bad since it will contribute to saving the plant – maybe! But then the Joshua lives on CO2 the most essential ingredient for all living plants – perhaps the “scientist” will now say that the loss of the trees CO2 consumption will cause global warming.
I own a few acres in this desert and some of which are the home of many Joshua tree families that are peacefully living out their hundred year lives. I like the trees, not only do they consume that evil CO2 but they are pleasing to the eye. The problem is that they reduce the value of private land. How, you might say? There is a California Government agency that strictly regulates your treatment of these trees – seems that the trees are endangered – or so the government says. If a person wants to put a house on a piece of land now occupied by a Joshua tree family one must pay big time. To eliminate one average size Joshua tree (about seven feet tall) one must pay an inspection fee plus $7500.00. You must even pay for the removal of dead Joshuas. The State of California passed the “Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA) in 2023. I strongly suspect that this is a waste of taxpayers’ money and just another infringement on an individual’s property rights. I wonder if the people doing the solar project, near Boron, are faced with this same expense?
Here's a newly operational solar project surrounding a retired coal plant near Grants, NM. Tri-State's Escalante coal plant was replaced with a 200-MW solar plant, though there is still a move afoot to reopen the coal plant as a hydrogen/carbon capture project. These are the kinds of locations that sail through with few if any objections. There are a bunch of additional similar opportunities in the works in the Four Corners region.
I see the world population topping out at about 14 billion people give or take a billion.. Energy requirements slightly higher per capita. America probably topping out at close to 750 million given climate migration from the south. Drier and hotter in the desert and mountain west, but also subject to atmospheric river events and convection driven storms with hail. Best solution is geothermal and nuclear.
AND considering the world population? I hesitate to put this out there considering the current push for more babies to be born - enough said. But it seems to me we should start to consider lowering the population soon. There seems to be a lack of thought when it comes to how many humans this planet can hold, doesnt there?
Your meditations on solar, etc. overlook a key point in the comparison of an open pit mine and a solar farm. Once the solar farm is built by a contracting crew, usually from out of the area, the permanent jobs for locals are few to none. By the same token, the open pit mining operation depends on locals to fill the jobs.
An open put mine is an irrevocable scar on the landscape. It's one of the closest things to an unforgivable sin in Nature's holy book. A job supplier? Not really. Those things are highly automated now and even the big shovels are getting roboticized. And even if they weren't, the mine operators aren't going to put your local high school graduates in the cab of a multi-million dollar machine.
This is true, and it's the same conundrum that comes when you replace a coal plant with a solar facility. Coal generation is far more labor intensive than solar generation, so the former creates many more long-term jobs.
A typically thoughtful piece. I too appreciate Sammy Roth's work, despite disagreeing with him on his conclusions fairly regularly. Chief among those conclusions is that given our energy demands we need to make some distasteful sacrifices, but those sacrifices seem not to include limiting the amount of power we use for things like bitcoin mining, or spending the money to refit our cities so that they consume less net energy. (Replacing stepdown valves on water mains with microturbines, for instance.) Somehow the climate crisis is a crisis when we're discussing paving public lands for solar, but not when we're talking about actually affecting people's lives in cities.
Tangentially: Despite the folklore, Joshua trees are indeed trees. I hold forth on this here: https://lettersfromthedesert.substack.com/publish/post/487934
I stand corrected! Great piece about the Joshua tree that I must have missed when it came out. Thanks, Chris. And, yes, I think part of the problem is the prevailing notion that we can just keep building more power plants (of the "clean" or "dirty" kind), and that there are no hard limits to how much power we can generate/consume. But there are limits -- or there should be.
Regarding the BLM’s solar EIS, it seems to me the big untold story is that most of the land the BLM is making off-limits to solar is not to protect cultural or natural resources. From the maps of southeast Utah, it’s clear that the real motivation is to eliminate conflicts with oil and gas development. This rewards the oil companies’ strategy of leasing every last acre of available land, most of which will never be drilled, in order to slow the energy transition. Of course, in SE Utah, there are many places that aren’t suitable for solar development due to the extensive cultural resources of the area. But to basically say that every-last acre of land leased (and in many cases already disturbed by) oil companies seems like an unreasonable limitation on solar development. For example, east of Bluff there’s a substation, surrounded by relatively flat land that has already been partially disturbed by past oilfield development. Great place for a solar facility…but would be off limits if the EIS is finalized with the current maps.
Thanks, Josh. I haven't looked at the Western solar plan at that detail yet (or from that perspective). I will dig in. Interesting.
Yes, lots to think about. A few observations come right to mind:
Parking lot solar has an Achille's heal. It costs $5/W installed vs. $1.25/W for solar in a field. So an extra $140 Billion for the 44,000 MW mentioned. And typically produces 30% less kWh over a year, and that's more intensely at mid-day. The extra costs come from the supporting structures with longer spans, and labor to work up high, and then digging around in parking lots vs. trenching fields, and making sure wiring is such that no bozos can get into it. That $5/W cost is a recent one for the CO Front Range. So Cal doesn't have snow loads like they do, but I'm sure there is some earthquake bracing needed, and instead of the delicate structures for arrays in solar fields, it's gotta be built with concrete piers to be crashed into and not tip over on the civilians. (Though yes, there would be some transmission not needed.)
I followed the links in a recent Bloomberg article on the solar industry's reaction to the BLM solar plan. (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/biden-solar-plan-thwarts-clean-energy-projects-industry-warns) They say that it contains major extra restrictions overlapping the land that was "opened up." Such that 2/3 of solar now on BLM land could not have been built under it. Or something. Not sure who's jiving who.
A while back, I looked at the EIS for this SunZia line alternatives. I seem to recall the route along I-10 then went right over about 300 homes or something, not completely benign. There were four other alternatives. One was rejected because a tower would have been in a center pivot field or something. So yeah, it seems lame to have it end up in that San Pedro Canyon. But last year in NM I did go hug one of the wind turbines in one of Pattern Energy's wind farms there. I do have solar on my house but just being "net zero" isn't enough.
Thank you, Fred. Great information to ponder!
Thanks Jonathan for your solar article, very well done, and I appreciate that you avoided focusing on a theoretically simply answer to a complex problem. I have read elsewhere that in many areas, in particularly the mid-west, local opposition is being generated with funds from the oil and gas sector, and its captured political component. This seems to be reflected in the agencies deferral to areas only theoretically suitable for oil and gas development.
Jonathan –
You like to be an optimist. I tend to be a realist (but oftentimes realism looks a lot like pessimism).
The battle to decarbonize the global energy system is not going to be won or lost in Rico or Silverton.
The battle is going to be won or lost in China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh and a dozen other developing nations.
What is the population of Silverton? About 600. What is the population of Lagos? Twenty million plus!
I assume you are familiar with the Canadian scientist and polymath Vaclav Smil and his extensive work on all things related to energy? Smil recently issued a short report titled 'Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050: Zero Carbon is a Highly Unlikely Outcome.'
Smil, who accepts that climate change is a serious global issue that needs to be addressed, works with the numbers and the numbers don’t add up. To attain Net Zero at 50 in a quarter of a century (a single human generation) will be a Herculean task requiring the global mobilization of all our resources. That isn’t going to happen because the people who rule us would rather spend the effort and money on other things (like waging war and producing weapons).
All past energy transitions (biomass to coal; coal to oil; oil to natural gas) have been additive. That is, the economy continued to use large amounts of wood and charcoal when transitioning to coal and the same when transitioning from coal to oil and gas. This will be the first energy transition in human history in which we will transition to a new energy regime (renewables) while at the same time aggressively working to eliminate an antecedent primary energy source. This is going to be quite a trick when one considers that coal, oil and gas currently supply slightly more than 80% of global energy consumption. And we will attempt to pull off this wishful thinking while the global economy and population continue to grow at exponential rates.
But the hard fact is that any successful transition to a renewable energy economy is going to require a wholesale reinvention in how we live our lives.
The Salina (KS) based Land Institute, in addition to its primary mission of advancing the science of perennial agriculture, has had their staff look into what this transition might entail. In the Fall 2018 issue of The Land Report, Fred Iutzi wrote the following:
“If we were to cobble together a hypothetical sustainable, minimally prosperous country…, we would have the nutritional pathway of Eritrea; a sanitation pathway that hasn’t yet been demonstrated, but where Tajikistan is the closest fit; the median income and energy use pathways of Moldova; a health pathway that hasn’t been demonstrated, but where Vietnam is the closest to filling; the secondary education pathway of Sri Lanka; the equality pathway of Ethiopia; the full employment pathway of Rwanda; and pathways to democratic governance and to overall life satisfaction that have not yet been demonstrated by any country. Notice much about this list? Not much Global North on it. We will need degrowth as a planetary civilization overall, and we will especially need degrowth here in the rich countries to make it possible for our southern neighbors to climb out of the colonial trench.”
Eritrea, Tajikistan, Moldova, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia, and Rwanda? Why did Iutzi select these nations and not others? Who knows, but the point is that all these countries have per capital energy consumptions well below what we consume here in the U.S. How many Americans are going to willingly step up to the plate to adapt this program? But Iutzi is close to the truth because any renewable energy economy is going to be an energy lean economy; much leaner than what we are now used to. With that will come a much reduced standard of living (as least as we traditionally understand the concept).
Only by a radical scaling back of global energy use (Iutzi’s degrowth) will the transition to a renewable energy future have any chance of success. As I tell my friends when we discuss this issue, are you prepared to live a life similar to the Old World Amish of Lancaster County PA? Not many find that a prospect they would gladly embrace.
In the big scheme of things, what happens in Boron CA is a gnat on the hind end of an elephant!
Valcav Smil’s report is here:
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/halfway-between-kyoto-and-2050.pdf
Smil’s webpage is here:
https://vaclavsmil.com/
The entire Fred Iutzi article, Economic transformations for an ecological civilization, is here (pages 15 to 21):
https://landinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/LR-122.pdf
Regards,
Ed Lindgren
Overland Park KS
Strange, isnt it? That there is never much if any acknowledgement that in order for energy transition to be successful - this "excellent capitalistic" society of ours would actually have to make sacrifices! The thing is - not everyone can or maybe will be able to afford electric vehicles - which of course means those of us (!) who are unable to need to continue driving our gas vehicles. Now that wouldnt be so bad IF so many of these vehicles werent SUVs and trucks - large gas guzzlers (no matter how economical they supposedly are). The quantity of these huge vehicles being driven in URBAN ares! Thats just one little thing. Then there are all of the OTHER absolute necessities. Must have new/current cellphones - vacations to exotic (or not) places. Think about the holiday flights & driving trips - all must-have necessities! I could go on - and on. Think about what our children have been and are being taught to expect! Certainly, NOT to get along with less - but to have more than their parents did.
Those of us far from the upper levels of "society" - most of us - already limit their driving and likely, many of these "necessities" in order to just survive.
I think Jonathan's thoughts regarding solar panels on parking lots, big box stores etc are a great idea. But then, I'm sure there would be pushback to that too. Because thats just what we do now - disagree - no matter what.
Incredible research.
Another notable and readable article, Jonathan. I have a little to add concerning the Joshua tree question. Personally, I am really not that concerned about the cutting down of 4,000 Joshua trees – there are many millions growing throughout “my” Mojave Desert. My concern would be for the many animals that depend on the native vegetation for survival. And for the soil and the destruction of the viewability of the desert landscape. To my way of thinking there is a pure beauty, in the untouched natural desert landscape.
From my perch in the San Gabriel Mountains, I look across the valley and see the area of the Boron mines and the proposed solar array that you write about. I guess, if the project goes forward, I will see a blinding reflection from hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of solar cells placed on the desert floor. That won’t be too bad since it will contribute to saving the plant – maybe! But then the Joshua lives on CO2 the most essential ingredient for all living plants – perhaps the “scientist” will now say that the loss of the trees CO2 consumption will cause global warming.
I own a few acres in this desert and some of which are the home of many Joshua tree families that are peacefully living out their hundred year lives. I like the trees, not only do they consume that evil CO2 but they are pleasing to the eye. The problem is that they reduce the value of private land. How, you might say? There is a California Government agency that strictly regulates your treatment of these trees – seems that the trees are endangered – or so the government says. If a person wants to put a house on a piece of land now occupied by a Joshua tree family one must pay big time. To eliminate one average size Joshua tree (about seven feet tall) one must pay an inspection fee plus $7500.00. You must even pay for the removal of dead Joshuas. The State of California passed the “Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act (WJTCA) in 2023. I strongly suspect that this is a waste of taxpayers’ money and just another infringement on an individual’s property rights. I wonder if the people doing the solar project, near Boron, are faced with this same expense?
I really doubt that, dont you?
Here's a newly operational solar project surrounding a retired coal plant near Grants, NM. Tri-State's Escalante coal plant was replaced with a 200-MW solar plant, though there is still a move afoot to reopen the coal plant as a hydrogen/carbon capture project. These are the kinds of locations that sail through with few if any objections. There are a bunch of additional similar opportunities in the works in the Four Corners region.
https://origisenergy.com/project/escalante-solar/
I see the world population topping out at about 14 billion people give or take a billion.. Energy requirements slightly higher per capita. America probably topping out at close to 750 million given climate migration from the south. Drier and hotter in the desert and mountain west, but also subject to atmospheric river events and convection driven storms with hail. Best solution is geothermal and nuclear.
AND considering the world population? I hesitate to put this out there considering the current push for more babies to be born - enough said. But it seems to me we should start to consider lowering the population soon. There seems to be a lack of thought when it comes to how many humans this planet can hold, doesnt there?
Agree completely Maggie. There are just two damn many of us! I'd much prefer a world with only a billion humans and half that many livestock.
Your meditations on solar, etc. overlook a key point in the comparison of an open pit mine and a solar farm. Once the solar farm is built by a contracting crew, usually from out of the area, the permanent jobs for locals are few to none. By the same token, the open pit mining operation depends on locals to fill the jobs.
An open put mine is an irrevocable scar on the landscape. It's one of the closest things to an unforgivable sin in Nature's holy book. A job supplier? Not really. Those things are highly automated now and even the big shovels are getting roboticized. And even if they weren't, the mine operators aren't going to put your local high school graduates in the cab of a multi-million dollar machine.
This is true, and it's the same conundrum that comes when you replace a coal plant with a solar facility. Coal generation is far more labor intensive than solar generation, so the former creates many more long-term jobs.