A proposed solar power plant in Southern California is facing heavy opposition from some environmentalists as the plan also calls for high-voltage transmission lines to run through a popular state park. To move the power generated by 12,000 solar-thermal dishes near El Centro, Calif., to customers in San Diego, power company San Diego Gas & Electric wants to build a $1.5 billion, 150-mile high-voltage transmission line that would cut through the middle of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. "This transmission line will cross through some of the most scenic areas of San Diego," said David Hogan of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It would just ruin it with giant, metal industrial power lines." The Anza-Borrego section of the line would span 23 miles, with 141 towers at an average height of about 130 feet. Six other transmission-line routes were studied by state and federal regulators, but SDG&E seems set on the Anza-Borrego route. The California Public Utilities Commission may vote on the proposal by the end of the summer.
source: Associated Press
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 3:59 am
16 Jun 2008
Permalink
cgurkin Posted 4:11 am
16 Jun 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:13 am
16 Jun 2008
How does an impact upon scenic-value destroy natural areas?
Wolverine wrote: more important than changing to less environmentally harmful technologies such as solar.
What fuel is less environmentally-harmful than solar?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:28 am
16 Jun 2008
These are ladder-lines. Because there is only air separating the conduction wires, they are very efficient. One cannot bury a ladder-line without building a tunnel around it.
Permalink
latenac Posted 4:42 am
16 Jun 2008
This is comparable to the wind energy issue here in Vermont. We all want energy from more sustainable resources but let's make sure there isn't a visible eyesore to get it. In the meantime a greater eyesore is brewing from people are promoting less sustainable and clean energy sources like coal and nuclear. At some point we're going to have to look at tradeoffs. Just because something might be an eyesore to humans it doesn't mean nature really cares all that much ie the plants and animals around it.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:20 am
16 Jun 2008
Perhaps, then, his implied endorsement of this human-centric viewpoint (from the article) was inadvertant:
"This transmission line will cross through some of the most scenic areas of San Diego," said David Hogan of the Center for Biological Diversity. "It would just ruin it with giant, metal industrial power lines."
Latenac wrote: Just because something might be an eyesore to humans it doesn't mean nature really cares all that much ie the plants and animals around it.
...Precisely my point -- or, at least, half of it. The habitat itself is not being ruined, but merely the exclusively-human-valued view of it.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:26 am
16 Jun 2008
The buried line suggestion is a common one that has surfaced many times over many decades. Frank Lloyd Wright offered to pay to have such a transmission line buried where it crossed his viewscape at Taliesin West in Arizona (I believe he swiftly withdrew the offer when he learned the order of magnitude of cost involved). As such it indicates the chasm that falls between viewscape environmentalists and and their more ecologically and globally alert peers. As it happens a buried line probably is more environmentally destructive than an aerial line in its greater demands on raw materials (larger conductors, tunnel encasement) and in its greater installation impact. Perhaps the greatest value of overhead transmission lines is their very ugliness, reminding us we could do better. Particularly perhaps with the local, decentralized generation that Wolverine and many others have suggested - get rid of the damn things altogether.
Permalink
danallen Posted 5:36 am
16 Jun 2008
The real issue is whether Los Angeles or San Diego will tap the solar energy resource of Imperial County, and so if San Diegans who oppose this power line don't come up with an alternative way to import the power, then San Diego will be stuck indefinitely with natural gas combustion generators in its air basin.
Permalink
brodro Posted 5:50 am
16 Jun 2008
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2008/may/28/cover/
Permalink
wendigo Posted 5:54 am
16 Jun 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-par ...
Permalink
latenac Posted 5:55 am
16 Jun 2008
We actually have a similar problem in Vermont all the time. Not just with wind but basically with newcomers* who don't want anything change, it should just be pristine and wonderful up here all the time. They're ignoring that some progress needs to be made some perfection sacrificed so that those who were here before they got here can live and put bread on the table. Life isn't so black & white that either the environment can be saved or humans can be saved. There are compromises that can be made in the name of smart growth and development.
*not all newcomers are like this.
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 6:16 am
16 Jun 2008
Maybe there are ulterior motives for trying to route transmission lines through the park, which is near the Mexican border.
If you live in the San Diego area, you will probably have an opportunity to help the Utilities Commission make a decision that benefits the public and also protects the environment.
Permalink
swan Posted 7:55 am
16 Jun 2008
There are huge unpopulated areas in the western half of the US and in other countries. Has anyone written about this? I would be curious to know.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:11 am
16 Jun 2008
This particular instance would seem to be a useful preview for any general discussion of the role of long-distance transmission in a renewable-energy based grid, and the complexity of the issue reinforces the case for local generation as the primary choice wherever possible.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:19 am
16 Jun 2008
The reason that we oppose unnatural human structures going through natural areas is that the former are an affront to nature itself. It's not just our own views that would be ruined, but the area itself would be ruined, or at least significantly degraded. You people should go learn from traditional native people and get some perspective, instead of thinking that the entire planet should bow to your selfish human desires for ever more unnatural energy.
And just because other species don't speak human doesn't mean that they don't object to these structures or are not harmed by them. Birds get electrocuted by power lines.
Furthermore, there's no excuse for building anything like this until all buildings have solar panels on their roofs and all parking lots have wind generators. At that point, electrical use should be limited. Reduction and consumption are what's needed and are the only ecologically friendly alternatives. Ruining natural areas with unnatural garbage is clearly not one.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:20 am
16 Jun 2008
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 10:04 am
16 Jun 2008
These are high-voltage powerlines. The conductors are widely-spaced. A bird might need a 50-foot wingspan, to get electrocuted.
sestech.com/pdf/SESENVIRO_UG2004.pdf
The first example profile evaluates a typical horizontal 750 kV line whose constructional characteristics are shown in Figure 5-7. It is made up of three phases 15 meters apart and 18 meters above the ground.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:35 am
16 Jun 2008
This fits my way of looking at life entirely...hey, solar power, clean right? Sure, but we have to destroy a forest to bring it to you.
Next up, Wind Farms blades shearing off into school buses...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 12:30 pm
16 Jun 2008
Though one wouldn't think this makes much difference, it really can. There are certain species of animals who will not leave the safety of shrubs or forest to go over less vegetated areas, even small strips of it.
In this way, the power lines can act to fragment the ecosystem.
I don't know if that's true for the wildlife in this particular park, but it could be.
Also, there's been some studies done that show that plants in general don't do as well next to power line corridors, so the extent of their impact can actually extend beyond the maintained area itself.
On the other hand, the article seems to place more emphasis on the "scenic" qualities than the threat to wildlife, so they might only expect a minimal impact from that, 'specially since most of San Diego area is desert.
Permalink
Kelly Posted 12:36 pm
16 Jun 2008
Environmental, environmental justice, and consumer advocate groups opposing this transmission line project include:
Anza-Borrego Foundation
Border Power Plant Working Group
California Native Plant Society
California State Parks Foundation
California Wilderness Coalition
Center for Biological Diversity
Desert Protective Council, Inc.
Environment California
Environmental Health Coalition
Friends of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park
Pacific Environment
Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy
San Diego Audubon Society
San Diego Cactus and Succulent Society
Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter
Surfrider Foundation, San Diego Chapter
Utility Consumers' Action Network
Wilderness Society
Much better clean energy solutions can be found in the San Diego Smart Energy 2020 report: http://www.sdsmartenergy.org/smart.shtml.
Permalink
carrieschneider Posted 1:33 pm
16 Jun 2008
The lines could be run along the current access on the east-west interstate 8.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:17 pm
16 Jun 2008
No need to give solar a bad name, like Cape Wind did for wind power. Put it on the roofs, solar PV/heatcogeneration and switch to geo heat exchange cooling. Use biogas backup and smart grid storage and the whole area would be a net power exporter.
Why can't we get some leadership that is aware of what is happening around them? Pitiful.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:51 pm
16 Jun 2008
According to the LA Times article that Wendigo provides a link to, it is an important circumstance that Schwarzenegger expelled Bobby Shriver and Clint Eastwood from the parks commission, not only for their opposition to another even more hideous violation of a state park in the San Diego area, but also fearing that they would oppose this SDG&E project in Anza-Borrego.
It is not clear what exactly SDG&E might be up to which is underhanded and self-serving; but that is not at all impossible. They may indeed have a presence in Mexico. But it should be noted that the Anza-Borrego route for the power line is the northerly, and further from the border, of the two options they considered. The chief is quoted in the LA Times article as saying that this project is in "the best interests of the state of California," by which he seems mainly to mean that this route will enable a link to the grid a bit further north.
With regard to potential impact on wildlife, the considerations of Tasermons Partner and CarrieSchneider are well worth noting. TasPar also makes an important observation, that humans are often prejudiced when they see an arid landscape: it looks "dead" to them, so they do not think building anything there would be disruptive. In fact, arid regions are full of life; the creatures may be hard to see, but they are there. And they are also carefully adapted to their ecosystem. They are able to maintain a precarious balance, but the circumstances are unforgiving, and any added stress would be very dangerous.
In this case, the most charismatic animal in Anza-Borrego is the "desert bighorn," the peninsular Bighorn Sheep ("borrego" is Spanish for "sheep"). There apparently are not many of them left, and they are very wary of human presence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anza-Borrego_Desert_State_Pa ....
In addition, though, the reptiles (iguanas, chuckwallas, some snakes) are noteworthy. Elsewhere, in treeless regions, it has been observed that any tall structure is set up will provide a perch for raptors and other predatory birds, giving them an advantage, and tipping the balance against their prey items on the ground. Cf. what has happened in Wyoming, where the sage grouse is in serious trouble, because it avoids the now-abundant natural gas apparatus, even if human beings are not present.
On the other hand, it is possible that the argument against the power line installation on the basis of aesthetics could actually be turned on its head: If the parts of Anza-Borrego around the power line are aesthetically "ruined," then fewer people might be likely to visit and hike and camp -- and that might turn out to be on balance a benefit for the plants and animals!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:04 pm
16 Jun 2008
This apparently throwaway line actually has some serious validity. One of the most important rare species reservoirs in southern England owes its biological diversity to having been used as a military firing range for over forty years, big guns and high explosives having been far less ecologically damaging than the other forms of human activity which they precluded: farming, hiking, etc.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:29 pm
16 Jun 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:44 am
17 Jun 2008
The obvious solution is to use roof top solar, coupled with conservation. Too obvious I guess.
With distrinbuted renewable power generation and storage, like solar PV/heat cogeneration on roofs, the existing grid would have many times the transmission capacity necessary.
More central power generation, like these huge solar installations, is just copying the mode of grid design that is part of the problem. A centralized power system is vulnerable to storm, monopolization, sabotage, and massive lobbyist corporate corruption.
Permalink
Range41 Posted 2:09 am
17 Jun 2008
Also, the focus of the the powerlink fight seems to be Anza Borrego because its a "park". But the real scenic tradegy is the effects to the ranchlands around Santa Ysabel and Lake Henshaw.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:07 am
17 Jun 2008
A. Powerline corridors in the Northeast are some of the best bird and mammal habitat around, because they are corridors for grass and shrubland species, with proximity to forestland habitat. If an ecological 'health' assessment was to be made based on avian/mammalian/vegetative biodiversity in a corridor encompassing the powerlines plus 60 foot wide inclusion of woods on each side, powerlines would typically be the 'healthiest' habitat around, much 'healthier' than forests. Quotes are necessary because habitats, unlike organisms, do not have an actual state of health.
Out west, this may not be the case, but due to the low stature of desert vegetation, the habitat is likely to be unchanged.
B. It is unfair to compare loud gas and oil rigs to essentially noiseless powerlines in terms of effects on wildlife.
C. Access roads are not different from hiking trails in the area, except that instead of one one-foot path there are two parallel one-foot paths separated by three feet.
D. Typically powerline companies in the Northeast clear vegetation about 7-10 years, and only trees due to the high costs of controlling all vegetation. As much as I would love to conduct vegetation sampling on a closely mowed golf-course like surface, usually I battle through thick growths of Rubus, Rosa, arrowwood, gray dogwood, hawthorn, willows and a ton of other shrubs, which all collectively blow to walk through.
This is in the typically very productive temperate forest region, where plant growth is fast. In the deserts, plant growth is minimal, and plant heights are not tall enough to interfere with power transmission, i.e. there are no treatment cycles. There will be one to two vehicles traveling the access road per year to make sure that the powerlines are in good shape, and the occasional chopper for security reasons.
So, the only reason that 'environmentalists' oppose it is due to aesthetic reason. So, thus, in effect Wolverine's argument is not Gaia-centric or whatever he proposes that approach to be, but really anthropocentric.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 4:10 am
17 Jun 2008
And the second is: power companies have capital and want to invest in photovoltaic or other solar power production. Individual residents of San Diego may or may not, but even if they do, they may not want to. So there's the argument against decentralized power production.
Permalink
wendigo Posted 5:32 am
17 Jun 2008
But desert bighorns are not generalists...they occupy very specific habitats, of which there are very few left. They are also not a human-tolerant species...you don't see them in areas that are frequented by people, and you don't see them near roads, unless there is a high cliff above a road.
I live about 100 miles from the park, and visit there often. You can see desert bighorns near seeps on inaccessible cliff faces in the backcountry, and they are normally clustered in these specific places. If a powerline and associated road access is inserted into their habitat, they will be displaced. This is a problem in the desert, since areas with suitable habitat and water are few and far between. The mere act of building the power corridor may be enough to disrupt breeding or lambing, which could damage or eliminate a local herd.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 6:56 am
17 Jun 2008
However, and correct me if I am wrong, isn't the new powerline replacing an old one? And if the construction of the old powerline didn't eliminate bighorn populations, why would the new one?
Permalink
wendigo Posted 8:32 am
17 Jun 2008
You're right as far as speculation goes; all we have to go on are biological science (inexact) and past experience (probably a better predictor). A good discussion of the problem was in the North County (San Diego) Times from earlier this year:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/13/news/top_stori ...
Permalink
HiTension Posted 11:43 am
17 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:08 pm
17 Jun 2008
Wolverine doesn't believe humans should exist in anything other than a hunter - gatherer form.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:52 pm
17 Jun 2008
a. SDG&E is the "company with the worst renewable energy record in California"; and
b. their project is based on the use of equipment which is not up to doing the job.
(But I do not know that most of us are being "self-righteous." Miserable, maybe, and suspecting that there must be a better way -- but that is rather different.)
Also, thanks to Range41 and HiTension for bringing attention to the effect of the SDG&E installation and power line on communities in Imperial Valley. My husband was born and raised in Brawley and Calipatria, the son of a farmer; he turned his back on it long ago, and hopes never to return; but I do. I mean, I would like to see the place, with him.
Wendigo,
thanks for that important article, from January, in the NCTimes, on the Peninsular big horn sheep, and park director Jorgensens's grave concerns about their welfare and viability.
Rather academically, Spaceshaper and I were considering whether the power line might create a zone of minimal human intrusion in which biodiversity might flourish. And ATreyger in the northeast pointed out that indeed, power lines can often be good for ecosystems. But all those considerations in this case are plainly smashed, but what the NCTimes article tells us. We have every reason to believe that the construction and maintenance of this power line, running lots of power, across Anza-Borrego would be highly disruptive of the lives of the park's most charismatic megafauna.
(By the way, ATreyger, the article stumbled in one point, saying that Anza-Borrego is the biggest state park in the Lower 48, totally ignoring our colossal Adirondack State Park.)
Mad Mac,
in defense of my cousin Wolverine: he does indeed have a take-no-prisoners style, and it is no surprise that his more-liberal-than-thou rants have rankled a number of readers. But I think it will be for the best, in the long run, that he continue to enunciate an extreme (and practically untenable) position in an issue of fundamental importance to fundamentalists.
And that is: How ought we human beings to react to the reality that our existence and livelihood on planet Earth require the exploitation, and often the destruction, of many other living beings?
I do not know that Wolverine himself has proposed a definitive solution to that problem. But I suspect that, willy nilly, he manages to get along tolerably well with human beings.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:48 am
18 Jun 2008
As Sean explains time after time though, the regulatory barriers to changing the grid design decisions are nearly insurmountable. Erected by industry lobbyists for the specific purpose of protecting the central generation grid owners from competition.
Once again it goes back to the individual home or small business, community building or school to become an energy independent part of a whole distribuited renewable grid. Then force legal change to allow energy cooperatives to buy/sell renewable energy over the grid.
It will take local, regional, and state reform movements, as with all other recent reform initiatives. The federal government is an almost wholey owned subsidiary of big monopoly business.
Hard for Barack to change that anytime soon.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:21 pm
18 Jun 2008
Yes, it is true, that humans have left quite the footprint - but how else could it be?
The earth is ours to exploit. We need to do it efficiently. We should avoid causing undo harm to other species where that's avoidable. But we have dominion. NATURE made it that way. It made us superior. Now, whether or not we use that superiority wisely or not is another matter.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:45 pm
18 Jun 2008
To a rational and omnipotent deity charged with the competent management of this floating vivarium, tossing our entire human species into the celestial trash can would be the most rational course of action. One can only think either that such a deity simply doesn't exist or that She keeps us around just for fun. We are probably among the more entertaining of the creatures in the box. Slugs and snails: b-o-o-o-ring.
Of course, short of total supernal omnipotence there would be some technical problems - Jehovah apparently needed Noah to build the Ark to preserve the other fauna but couldn't talk him out of bringing some human breeders along. Bummer.
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 6:01 am
30 Jun 2008
That greenwashing started in a meeting in 2006 between SDG&E and various San Diego movers and shakers, Chamber of Commerce types and local pols. SDG&E had already proposed a roughly similar power line with no renewable energy justification, and been denied by the California Public Utilities Commission. Now SDG&E asked these movers and shakers: We need this power line, what's the best way to sell it to the public? The movers and shakers' answer: renewable energy plus reliability. Read about that meeting in this San Diego Union-Tribune article.
SDG&E has already sold San Diego on one transmission line that they promised would carry renewable power. Today, it carries almost none. The solution for bringing "big solar" to San Diego (if it's really necessary): boot some of the fossil-fueled power off the existing transmission line and replace it with renewables. But better yet, start with efficiency (which SDG&E is way behind on) and local rooftop solar (which SDG&E has fought tooth and nail against).
As I've posted here before, building a long transmission line to carry zero-carbon power makes no sense. The environmental impact report on the Sunrise Powerlink found that building and operating the power line would produce more greenhouse gas emissions than would be saved, even if the line carried 100% renewables.
For the full truth on this issue, go to www.sdsmartenergy.org. Or see my article at www.desertreport.org.
To Grist: please don't just re-post one-sided AP articles on complex local energy issues.
Permalink