|
|
|
|
Why environmental groups would oppose a renewable energy project |
|
|
Monday, 01 June 2009 |
 According to environmental advocates, the thriving ecosystem of Little Lake could potentially disappear due to Coso Geothermal Plant’s Hay Ranch groundwater pumping project 10 miles north of the lakes. File photo By Mike Bodine
Register Staff
5-30-2009 The Coso Geothermal Plant, the largest producer of geothermal energy on the planet, and reportedly the hottest geothermal reservoir in the world, is moving forward with its project to pump water, arguably the most precious resource in the Eastern Sierra and the state, to continue generating power in a financially viable way.
But a strange dichotomy is happening with Coso’s renewable energy venture that has environmental advocates staunchly opposed to the project, which would not produce the amount of greenhouse gases that a normal coal or natural gas powered plant would.
At issue is the fact that Coso needs to pump water from an aquifer and in the process possibly cause irreversible damage to that area, specifically the Little Lake riparian area.
It is no secret that the Owens Valley has a long and turbulent history concerning water and its exportation from the area, usually for the monetary profits of a few. So this new water war is emerging as the country moves toward weening itself off of imported fossil fuels.
Environmental advocates, at the national and local level, support renewables, but only if the project is truly renewable.
Carl Zichella, director of the Sierra Club’s Western Renewable Programs, said that the club is “generally, a big supporter of renewable energy, as they are a very important piece of the future.”
He continued by praising geothermal power for its continuous “non-intermittent” energy source that runs 24 hours a day, unlike other renewables that depend on sunlight or wind.
But, the Sierra Club’s official stance on renewable energy projects is to approach them “on a case by case basis,” Zichella said Tuesday.
“We need them (geothermal power plants) desperately, but we need to be careful,” Zichella explained. “Geothermal power is not really possible or appropriate everywhere.”
And, when given a brief synopsis of the particulars of the program, Zichella said, “We (the Sierra Club) want to see the plant move forward, but I don’t think the Sierra Club would be in support of over subscribing an aquifer.”
Zichella said that according to future weather predictions, the climate will continue to warm and water will become even more precious. “The water wars of the past will be considered child’s play.”
Representatives from the Sierra Club headquarters in San Francisco said that, generally the position with renewable projects is that local chapters are considered the authority as they are more up-to-date on the details of a project.
Mark Bagley, botany consultant as well as the spokesperson taking the lead on the project for the Range of Light Chapter of the Sierra Club, said Wednesday, reiterating his comments from the May 6 Board of Supervisors meeting, that the Sierra Club does not oppose renewable energy, but is concerned that the project be the best use of the resources available.
Bagley’s comments on renewables echoed those of Zichella, in that these power plants must be a totally renewable source, not “either/or” scenarios. For example, Coso is a renewable energy source, but the fact that it is utilizing groundwater pumping makes the project not wholly “renewable” according to Sierra Club standards.
Zichella added that the California Energy Commission is asking all new wind power plants to be dry cooled.
Roger Johnson, transmission corridor designation program coordinator for the California Energy Commission, concurred that dry cooling is the “preferred” method for new power plants, but he said wet cooling is not prohibited. Johnson said, essentially, “everything can be dry cooled, but it is incredibly expensive.”
Dry cooling systems for the power plant was one alternative to Coso’s pumping project, but was discounted due to the expense and additional environmental impacts the new system would entail.
According to geothermal power plant cooling system experts, such as Veizades and Associates, consultant for Coso, a dry cooling system would be ineffective in the hot climates of the Coso Range.
The local Bristlecone Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, headed by spokesperson and President Steven McLaughlin, said Thursday that CNPS is willing to consider any renewable energy power plant, as long as it is one that does not deplete natural resources. With Coso’s need for groundwater pumping, McLaughlin said, “It’s not a renewable.” He said cooling tower improvements would make the project truly renewable and sustainable.
McLaughlin and CNPS have been adamantly against the project from the start, arguing that the project’s impact to the flora and fauna of the area is not adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report.
Greg Suba, the conservation program director for CNPS said Tuesday that he could not comment on the Coso project, as he did not know the specifics. He did say that, in general, the criteria for CNPS to approve a renewable energy project is that the project does not tap into groundwater.
“We (CNPS) takes a hard look at any project that calls for groundwater pumping,” Suba said. “Is it the most sustainable use, is it the best use of the resource?”
Suba said that these issues are part of the bigger question of “What do we do now?”
“Everybody wants renewable energy, but we’re just now getting down to the nitty gritty details” of what the energy will really cost, Suba explained. He wondered if Coso’s project was sustainable and not just for the power plant but for the botany, wildlife and people.
McLaughlin explained that CNPS’ concern with the Coso project, in addition to the lack of adequate inventory of plants at Little Lake and the mislabeling of others, is that the project will ultimately dry up the lake. “That’s too high of a price to pay.”
He added that the economic gains to be had by the county from the property tax revenue of the plant may be short-term. He explained that as tourism is the major industry in the county, the potential of drying up one of the last riparian areas left in the US 395 corridor would be detrimental to that industry. He said that the future of the county depends on the health of the countryside.
And on the subject of revenue generated to the county by the plant, McLaughlin said, “I bet if you add up the property tax value of all the businesses, hotels and restaurants that could be affected (by the loss of Little Lake), it’s more than the total of Coso’s tax revenue.”
McLaughlin added that he does not believe the mitigation measures will be effective in, one, trying to measure the minute amounts of drawdown to hit triggers, and two, stopping pumping once the triggers are hit.
According to McLaughlin, he sees a serious political battle ensuing in trying to actually cease the pumping once the project is under way.
The alternative to the pumping, namely retrofitting the plant with dry cooling systems, is another contentious issue for environmental advocates.
Bagley said that a cooling system alternative was not adequately addressed in the EIR. The EIR claims that fitting the plant with a dry cooling system is “not economically feasible” and no further details are given.
However at the May 6 hearing, Coso presented detailed testimony from geothermal plant cooling system engineers that a dry cooling system is not only expensive, but would actually use so much “parasitic power” to keep the cooling system running in the triple-digit temperatures of an Inyo County summer, that the plant could not produce energy for sale.
A major complaint from opponents of the project is that the new testimony presented at the May 6 meeting should have been included in the EIR, as per the California Environmental Quality Act.
Coso had retained the services of Charity Schiller, a self-proclaimed “CEQA lawyer,” who said that the testimony is legal under the act.
“That’s what she said,” Bagley said.
At the time of this article, the California Natural Resources Agency, the CEQA people, were unavailable to comment on the interpretation.
While no one is disputing the importance and need for renewable energy, there are few if any instructional guidelines for plants, as far as “how to’s” and “what not to do’s.”
Johnson said the commission is working with other agencies like the Department of Fish and Game, putting together such guidelines. He said developer guidelines should be published by the end of this year.
McLaughlin said CNPS is having an upcoming statewide meeting to discuss and collaborate in collecting its own set of guidelines for renewable energy.
The questions are not expected to go away or be easily answered in the near future. There are federal and even stricter state regulations going into effect in the next decade forcing utilities to generate and/or purchase more energy from renewable sources.
“It’s the new gold rush of the West,” Suba said.
|
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 10 July 2009 )
|
|
|
|
