Letter to the Editor: Deceptively Dirty

As our state government pursues a green future, it’s important we ask ourselves if the movement underway will indeed do that. I have serious concerns about that, both as an Earth Scientist and as a descendant of indigenous peoples repeatedly told to consider industrious efforts like it progress and be done with it. At present I see an approach that hasn’t been properly studied being rolled out as though it has. I am of course speaking of the impact solar development will have.

While an effort to establish a simple transmission line capable of carrying 1200 MW of electricity through Western Maine met intense scrutiny because it would impact 320 acres of forested lands regularly harvested, solar projects impacting many times more are going up while barely making headlines. They should, as the generated capacity per acre newly affected is far less impressive than the 3.75 MW per acre this project would manage, but they’re not.

Let us consider this question. Longroad Energy has begun work on a 926 acre solar farm that will generate just 152 MW. Some of that will absorb farmland, but 690 acres of forested land will be cut to establish it. Assuming we only care about the forested land lost to the project, it will generate just 0.22 MW per acre affected. In other words, it will be 17 times less efficient than the transmission line discussed above.

Again, it’s complex. While the tech sector encourages us to invest in the massive expansion of mining, manufacturing, and transportation pipelines necessary to support the installation of solar farms that just don’t allow us to use land efficiently, we’re asked to scrutinize less tech intensive options, like hydro development. And we dismiss the impact this sector’s outrageous wealth has on debate even as it joins forces with fossil-fuels dependent electric generators through the activist communities it misinforms, like it did before the referendum vote that halted construction of the highly efficient transmission line I discussed above?

Telling is the fact that the activist communities energized by this debate have little to say on a topic that is typically near and dear to them. Self reliance. It’s understood that this community sees self reliance as one means to reduce emissions, and yet it hasn’t considered the impact the global pipeline expansion I highlight above will have on them. I find that perplexing, unless I assume it’s due to the fact that they simply trust big tech.

Just so you know, researchers actually interested in assessing the impact these activities will have find that some of those pipelines will have to expand to 4 times their current size to keep up with big tech’s energy related goals. With some researchers saying it will be impossible to convert just 25% of fossil-fuels dependent engines driving it by 2050, and our energy demands growing, there is literally no way that isn’t going to drive emissions levels yet higher. And, to make matters worse, most of the mines this response depends upon are located in regions that aren’t expected to respond very quickly to the need to reduce them.

There are local resources we can depend on to meet our energy goals, but big tech has spent decades convincing us not to. Sunlight isn’t one of those, however, because it relies so heavily on global pipelines that would have to remain productive indefinitely to sustain us. Our forested lands and waterways are clearly good sources of energy. Yes, they’ve been mismanaged in the past, but we’ve made significant improvements since then. We can harvest and replenish forested lands more quickly than the minerals big tech relies upon will be, and we’ll continue to benefit from their carbon capture abilities so long as big tech leaves them alone.

One way to identify energy options that remain efficient while tapping into the global pipelines I discuss above is to focus on those that use more concrete, as it’s sourced from local materials and therefore doesn’t require nearly as much energy to acquire than anything tapping into these pipelines. Choose energy options that use more concrete to generate electricity and you’ve got an efficient source that doesn’t waste energy refining ores of poor quality, firing the incredibly hot furnaces necessary to work with them, or transporting them halfway around the world. Nor will they need to be replaced nearly as often or require those pipelines to run at 4 times their current capacity indefinitely to sustain us.

Options that fit the bill are hydro, nuclear, and wind. Hydro tops that list, though it has faced resistance for more than a century, which I get it because industry has misused our waterways in the past. In fact, that’s been the case since Europeans first arrived, forever altering our relationship with them and what they are capable of providing. Unfortunately, the climate change those pipelines I discussed above will  impact them more than hydroelectric facilities will, even though the products they produce look so clean.