
California's San Bernardino County restricts construction of solar, wind farms - rhegart
https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-san-bernardino-solar-renewable-energy-20190228-story.html
======
niftich
San 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
> 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
You 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
Birds literally burst into flames in the air.

------
killion
It 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
They’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
There 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
Have 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.

~~~
sgift
> It’s so obvious you shouldn’t need evidence.

And that's how we end up with things like "obviously, we cannot have a climate
change, I mean it's cold on the outside!!".

~~~
almost_usual
An experiment you can reproduce in a vehicle driving on a dirt road is a bit
easier than measuring global climate change.

~~~
jessaustin
Experiment?! We don't want to hear about experiments!

------
jadell
> “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
Solar and wind will never be enough.

[https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-
th...](https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/)

~~~
Arn_Thor
The 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.

~~~
yostrovs
Nuclear is safe. It's safer than coal, solar, wind, and pretty much every
other form of energy. And cleaner too. But it's "nuclear" and "radiation,"
which means half the public enters a state of paranoia.

Do investigate the relative dangers of energy production.

~~~
door5
The Fukushima disaster almost got to the point where they had to _evacuate
Tokyo_.

I support nuclear power, but to say that it is without risks and the public is
just irrational is disingenuous.

~~~
yostrovs
Nobody has nor anyone will die from Fukushima. Tokyo wasn't evacuated.

I didn't say nuclear is without risks, but it is safer than other methods of
producing lots of electricity

~~~
trissi
This is just plain wrong.

Although only one person has died from radiation YET, over 2000 died
during/from evacuation.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties)

~~~
yostrovs
It's obviously poor evacuation or, more likely, the evacuation was
unnecessary. The fault is of bureaucrats not nuclear technology.

~~~
door5
Well unfortunately we live in a world of imperfect bureaucrats instead of
perfect ones.

If someone tells you there's a 1% chance that if you don't evacuate millions
of people would be exposed to dangerous radiation, would you give the order?
10%? 50%? these are not easy questions

------
zzleeper
Wow.. when I thought NIMBYism in California couldn't get any worst.

From here: [https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-
board...](https://www.sbsun.com/2019/02/28/san-bernardino-county-board-to-
prohibit-renewable-energy-development-in-key-desert-areas/)

" 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.

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
They’ve ramped it up to NIMC.

~~~
drdeadringer
What does the 'C' stand for? County? Country? City?

~~~
koolba
Century.

------
newnewpdro
For 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)

------
rhegart
Wide open rural land, little environmental or people impact, some of the best
consistent sun in the world

~~~
hyperbovine
Do 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
Right 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
I 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.

------
aaronblohowiak
In USA local authority is derived from the state, so ca legislature can wipe
out the county laws with some small legislation. Ianal

~~~
almost_usual
Probably not a good precedent to set.

~~~
vidarh
Neither 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
I'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.

------
jayd16
>[...] solar projects proposed along or near the _highway_ would ruin the
pristine desert landscapes [...]

Ironic.

~~~
burfog
It 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.

------
ralph84
Lots 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
Can 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
The 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
This 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
The 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
At the end of the day someone gets the powerplant in their backyard.

~~~
squozzer
And the defining characteristic of that decision is the social status of the
location.

------
threeseed
> 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 ?

~~~
tyu1000
A 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-
tur...](https://leaderpost.com/business/energy/chaplin-lake-wind-turbine-
project-rejected-over-concerns-for-birds)

------
trimbo
Will they accept nuclear reactors though?

If you're going to ban these, then offer a non-fossil-fuel alternative that
could work.

~~~
acidburnNSA
Their 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#Clos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_Canyon_Power_Plant#Closure_in_2024%E2%80%932025)

~~~
epistasis
Weird, 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/c...](https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/cwa316/powerplants/diablo_canyon/docs/rc_dc_pres032811.pdf)

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.

~~~
cladari
What they are talking about is what is used to condense the steam exiting the
main turbine which is the thing that spins the generator. DC uses seawater to
run through the condenser and then back out to the sea, warming the water
about 20 degrees if I remember correctly. This is why you see most nuclear
plants along the coast or lining the Great Lakes.

The only other methods I am aware of are the giant cooling towers people
associate with nuclear plants or ponds (more like canals which snake back and
forth, see Turkey Point in Florida) which allow the water to cool before
reuse.

------
tanilama
> ruin the pristine desert landscapes that make the area so attractive.

OK, so this is pretty much another incident of property value protection?

------
remarkEon
What'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.

~~~
toomanybeersies
When projects like these are planned, they consider the entire lifecycle of
the project, including end of life.

~~~
rurounijones
People said the asme thing with Nuclear.

Just because they say they are doesn't mean they actually are.

~~~
jessaustin
When 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.

------
higginsc
It's a fucking desert.

~~~
tyrust
I don't agree with the decision, either, but a desert is a biome that deserves
respect like any other.

~~~
cf498
I 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.

~~~
stuart78
Deserts 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)

~~~
cf498
> and it is worth protecting for the same reason any other biome is.

Other biomes are worth preserving as they keep this planet habitable. I
thought deserts do quite the opposite.

[https://www.environmentalscience.org/deserts-
ecosystems](https://www.environmentalscience.org/deserts-ecosystems)

> Even though the plant and animal species that exist in hot deserts are well-
> adapted to those environments, we know from studies that such organisms are
> treading a fine line over environmental tolerance; some are even at their
> limits, according to the IPCC (25).

>Both The Sahara and The Namib are extremely hot deserts and in recent years
have experienced some of the hottest temperatures to date. Pakistan and Iran
have also experienced record dry spells and high temperatures in the last
decade. Even semi-arid desert climates are experiencing an increase in hot and
dry spells, becoming more parched and experiencing wildfires in areas where
scrub, brush and tree cover is more abundant.

...

>Evidence demonstrates that the deserts of the Arabian Peninsula alone show
increased water vapor feedback, much higher sensitivity, and increased
sensitivity in deserts to greenhouse gas emissions. Simply, deserts become
hotter and drier during a warming climate with wider implications for the
warming climate.

However I was not aware of this

>Many are not aware that deserts are a net carbon sink, providing some relief
from the increase in greenhouse gases. This will be problematic while carbon
emissions continue to increase, and world governments will need to do
something about it in the future. The discovery was made when researching
bacteria in the desert. Research suggests that bacteria located in massive
aquifers beneath the sand and in the sands itself, are capturing carbon from
the air. In theory, the aquifers could hold more than the entire global
population of plant material at present at 20 billion metric tons (or 22
billion imperial/US tons) (33).

~~~
tyrust
San Bernardino County is very different from the Sahara and Namib. Take a
quick look at aerial images and this is clear.

~~~
cf498
Sure, the article I linked goes into detail with different desert biomes.
Found the cold desert example in Iran especially interesting.

But my question was about deserts in general. The answer I was looking for was
deserts being carbon sinks.

------
Wyndtroy2012
Yay! 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.

------
lewis500
This 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.

------
gesman
Lawmakers want their own share and haven't been given one.

~~~
jessaustin
Yeah 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.

------
crb002
Wind 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
Perhaps 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.

------
BurningFrog
Strange that such an industrial use isn't seen as benefitting the locals. Or
at least not enough of those in power.

------
Griceraae50100
Lucerne dry lake isn’t right now. Isn’t Sen Feinstein D-CA financially
involved in desert solar projects?

------
User23
Wind power is routinely deployed in an environmentally irresponsible way.
[https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-
wind-...](https://www.audubon.org/conservation/audubons-position-wind-power)

------
scarejunba
California 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.

------
C1sc0cat
Oh so its Nuclear power for San Bernardino then :-)

------
mifreewil
(Deleted)

~~~
a012
And everything could cause cancer.

~~~
olliej
The amount of fuss over “may cause cancer” is excessive.

On the other hand RadiThor existed so clearly the other extreme also existed
:)

------
purplezooey
Get Off My Land Dag Nabbit

~~~
C1sc0cat
Falmer Palmers American Cousin

------
droithomme
So 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
That'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.

------
benj111
"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?

------
OldHand2018
I 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?

~~~
zenexer
It doesn’t really matter how much electricity you consume if it’s coming from
the sun. 1J of energy is 1J of energy. If the sun just hits the desert floor,
it’ll heat up the earth immediately. If you collect the energy and convert
(some of) it to electricity, whatever’s converted successfully won’t heat up
the planet immediately, but it’ll end up back in the form of heat eventually.

There’s really no benefit to decreasing consumption of electricity. There’s no
difference between decreasing demand by 1W and increasing solar output by 1W.

~~~
NotAnEconomist
> There’s really no benefit to decreasing consumption of electricity. There’s
> no difference between decreasing demand by 1W and increasing solar output by
> 1W.

This ignores the sunlight that reflects back into space, and if conversion
into electricity and slow return to heat actually increases the amount of
energy that the planet can effectively absorb.

At some level, it's just a question of if the planet would heat up by painting
the deserts black -- and I suspect that the answer is "yes".

~~~
zenexer
Interesting point. I’m not sure there’s really any way I can estimate the
difference there.

