- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- 142 big O.C. buildings are ‘distressed’
- Seal Beach home prices fell 23% in crash 49 minutes ago
- Tax tips: Save on IRA fees
- 12 surprising things made in O.C. 1 hour & 14 minutes ago
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Desert damage: the dark side of solar power?
March 24th, 2009, 3:56 pm · 21 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, science, environment editor
Thousands of acres of solar panels could spring up across California’s Mojave Desert like a crop of crystal mushrooms — a new kind of gold rush meant to bring powerful environmental benefits.
Cutting such a wide swath, however, might also disrupt desert ecosystems and the fragile plants that thrive there. (AP file photo of Mojave desert solar array.) 
It’s a concern expressed by some policymakers and scientists, including Darren Sandquist, a Cal State Fullerton biologist with a perspective all his own.
For years, Sandquist has studied the subtle changes wrought across the desert surface by railroads.
Such structures divert runoff into culverts and channels, altering the flow of water across the land. That, in turn, changes both the types of plants in the Mojave as well as where they grow. Similar effects can be expected from large solar array or wind power projects.
”It’s certainly going to damage some of the ecology,” Sandquist (left) said. “I think that’s a tradeoff we have to accept. It’s part of becoming less reliant on oil, and more reliant on solar and wind power.”
Sandquist hopes designers of large solar and wind projects will try to avoid the most harmful effects.
“I think they should take into account how the redistribution of resources in general is going to affect ecosystems,” he said.
The railroad he’s been studying, near Kelso Depot in the Mojave National Preserve, has existed for about a century; he’s been able to track vegetation changes since that time.
Species of plants, plant cover and even the size of plants have been affected. Similar effects can be seen along desert highways.
“Anybody who drives through the desert notices the size of plants,” he said. “Right next to the road, the plants are much larger.”
Such changes are likely to bring shifts in animal populations as well, although Sandquist said measurements of effects on animals in the area are not yet complete.
Not only the effects of roads, but of dust kicked up when desert plants that hold soil in place are cut down to make way for solar arrays could be harmful to the delicate desert ecology.
“Studies have shown the dust on surfaces of leaves significantly reduces the photosynthetic ability of plants,” he said. “Productivity decreases.”
One of his big concerns is something few of us even know exists. 
“One of the most important living structures on the surface are biotic crusts,” he said — commonly networks of cyanobacteria and lichens. They can be disrupted or destroyed simply by walking on them. (Photo of biotic crust courtesy Darren Sandquist.)
“They don’t extend more than a few millimeters below the surface,” he said. “Just by being there, they hold the dirt and silt in place.”
Losing them can lead to massive dust storms.
Even minor changes to desert solar projects could protect the variety of organisms that dwell there, he said. Instead of building roads, for example, operators of arrays that require few visits for maintenance might consider buying larger trucks and just driving over the existing plants.
“I really feel like the ecosystem could handle it if they just drove over it every once in awhile,” he said, instead of removing large sections of vegetation to build roads.
GIant solar arrays are a very real possibility in the Mojave. The California Public Utilities Commission estimates that 100,00 to 160,000 desert acres would be needed to meet the state’s goal of increasing renewable energy by 33 percent by 2020. Fourteen solar and five wind projects are being proposed on about 42,000 acres within in a 600,000-acre area known as the former Catellus lands, between the Mojave Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park.
Activist groups are angry, especially the Wildlands Conservancy, which provided $40 million to purchase the lands for preservation. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein recently announced a new effort to preserve all or part of the area by declaring it a national monument.
“Some people would argue that desert organisms are as resilient as they come,” Sandquist said. “But they are vulnerable and sensitive because they are living on the edge — limited water, very warm termperatures, very cold nights during certain times.”
Latest posts:
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
21 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
-
-
16th annual People’s Choice
From your favorite restaurants and shops to the best day spa in town, here are your choices for the number one places to eat, shop and play in O.C.
Browse the 2009 Best of Orange County winners-
ADVERTISEMENT
I haven’t thought about that at all. I guess anything to the extreme isn’t always good. What about hydropower? I would assume that underwater turbines are more invasive than solar panels in desert.
Green Stuffs
I agree on the ” drive over comment, we do not need a plowed access road to every power poll, or man made device in most locations. All a road does is creat huge amounts of dust, erosion control problems and what I have learned from above the distribution and movement of water. High clearence service vehicles would need to be protected to insure wild fires are not started from exaust systems. I would goes as far as to say, when a solor array or pole is sunk in the ground, that land below should not be cleared of plants. It is better to have a plant slowly die, and collaspe leaving ground cover versus scrapping and cleaning the ground before it is installed.
Make up your mind, people. Do you want independence from oil? Or, do you want to protect 1% of the desert?
.
I am suprised to see Feinstein throw her political stench over this subject. Usually, it would be Boxer to enact the heavy-handed, and politically motivated land grabs in the name of environmental protection.
You people make me sick
You will fight projects like a clean energy solar plant
But will say nothing about the Illegal Alien Invasion destroying hundreds of thousands of acres of desert land near the border (trash, human waste, vehicle traffic by smugglers)
You also refuse to say anything about over population destroying the environment,
And the destruction of the rain forests that spew billions of tons of CO2 into the air.
I have news for people like you!
The fewer the people in the US and the world the less energy and resources used
And the less need to be in the desert!
BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!
TAKE THE BLINDERS OFF AND GET A CLUE!
People who say “people make me sick” are usually the sickos! It’s stupid to call the plants that grow in the desert ecosystem “fragile”-fragile, my ass! Those ugly looking plants can withstand big temperature extremes and live in poor soil conditions where nothing but tumbleweeds grow.
I love plants and animals! I also Love my Country! How many Men and Women do you think have lost their lives in the fight for energy?
We in America have got to stop and think and get our priorities back on the right track! We need alternative energies! Those of you that want to keep fighting these very important resourses we need to keep our Country strong, need to step back and think please!
All of the people out there fighting every bit of growth, it seems no matter what, need to rethink their position.
I have to say, I’m more for the Men and Women and Children than I am for the plants and animals.
Sounds like “green hater” has been reading “The Population Bomb” from, say, 40 years ago. That theory has been debunked for years. Yes, there are terrible problems with the environment that is being destroyed, but having less people in the world would not necessarily solve anything. Besides, just WHO is destroying the rainforests anyway? Do US citizens go there and deliberately trash those places, or is it the governments of the countries themselves that have poor land management policies?
Then there are those who don’t want to have any type of alernative power sources like wind, water, solar, you name it. So do they think we should all live in huts and wear grass skirts? Do we really want to go back to those days when everyone lived on the very edge of survival?
Maybe we should have the captured illegals go back and pick up the trash before we deport them.
Just a few random thoughts–no time to really go into it, due to lack of time and space here.
Nuclear power is the real solution.
The biggest problem, however, is too many control freaks who want to use vague “environmental” laws to micromange our lives while living like kings themselves.
As long as we allow them to decide what is best for us there will never be an “environmentally friendly” source of energy.
Imagine what it will be like when they get their way and America finally becomes a third world country where we burn garbage etc. to heat our homes.
If environuts believe there are too many people then they should be the first to kill themselves off.
Yeah, solar and wind are even going to come close to making us independent of foreign oil. Get a clue! I am with the eco-marxist, flat-earthers on this one (i hate to admit it). 100,000 acres for solar and wind. hahahahahahaha. Only in today’s America. Oil – Natural Gas -Coal – Nuclear. Drill baby drill!!!!
What do these hippies want us to do?
They don’t want us to use oil.
They don’t want us to use the sea turbines.
They don’t want us to use solar panels in the desert.
There are not enough caves for 30 million Kahlifornians.
MrT4prez: They want you to be quiet and eat your soilant green.
I heard soylent green is good with a little Tabasco.
Maybe before getting all bent out of shape and uploading shrill diatribes, some of those commenting should READ THE ARTICLE! Sandquist clearly states that it’s a “tradeoff we have to accept”. He’s merely identifying the downside and offering suggestions for minimizing the negative effects.
Excellent article, Darren! I doubt there would be such foolish remarks if people would actually READ the article prior to commenting!
The problem is that his “mere suggestions” will be employed by those who seek to force mankind into a plastic bubble of existence. Such persons as members of the CBD, who will sue the state and federal agencies once the first stem of milkvetch is stepped upon. The same groups who rally against technology and freedom.
Who gives a crap? It’s a frickin’ desert! Hello! The Bureau of Reclamation was formed in 1902 to “Reclaim” the desert! That means to change it from what it is, a worthless wasteland, to something inhabitable! Hey, brainic biologists, get a clue! If people are going to live here we have to change it! Listen to your new messiah, Barack Obama and embrace change!
Its basic physics, for every action there is an opposite reaction.
Its basic thermodynamics, for every process there are irretrievable losses.
I am sure that Sandquist realized that his points of view would touch off some body out there. Maybe thre’s a grant or a stipend in his future.
In short, its like Rozanne Rozanadana’s father used to say:
Its always something-first you have to steal the land to cut down the trees to make fire so you can move the locomotives, then you have to kill off the bulffalo to steal the land from the indians and make way for the trains,, then you have to steal the land again to get to the oil, then you have to steal the land again from the indians and the little creatures of the desert to make way for the wind farms and the solar panels…
Good night my little Rozanne Rozanadana!
We should put solar panels on top of buildings in urban areas. We do not need to destroy the desert by creating big centrally controlled energy projects to maintain the energy monopolies like SCE.
Centralized solar plants are actually good!
What percentage of the desert will be taken up by CSP? Maybe 0.001%.
Can we have a rational discussion over the balance between our lust for energy consuming devices, our need to use energy during off peak periods, and our need to protect the environment? When the environmentalists finally get people to agree to green energy (at a very high cost), they then fight against transmission lines and use of the desert. Come on – it’s a desert for heaven’s sake. Let some of it – a very small part – be used for power generation.
First of all, i think this idea is absolutely brilliant.
The fact that most of you went into to so much details just shows that you have no life…
stop living behing the computer and ordering take out…
live life!
Good points about the effects of central solar on the desert. If we don’t need the roads and it is better for the desert habitat, why not? We need all kinds of renewables today and the input from biologists on their siting and to government officials on best practices moves the industry in the right direction.